City: PORTSMOUTH/NEWINGTON
PEASE AIR FORCE BASE
Site Information:
Site Name:
Address:
PEASE AIR FORCE BASE
PORTSMOUTH/NEWINGTON, NH
EPA ID:
EPA Region:
NH7570024847
01
Site Alias Name(s):
US AIR FORCE PEASE AFB
13 IDENTIFIED WASTE AREAS
Record of Decision (ROD):
ROD Date:
Operable Unit:
ROD ID:
09/27/1993
01
EPA/ROD/R01-93/083
Media:
Soil, Sediment, Debris, GW
Contaminant:
VOCs, Other Organics, Metals
Abstract:
The 23-acre Pease Air Force Base (Operable Unit 1) site is part of
the 4,300-acre inactive Air Force base located in Newington and
Portsmouth, Rockingham County, New Hampshire. Land use in the
area is predominantly commercial and residential, with wetlands and
woodlands located onsite. Current land use at the site is institutional,
agricultural, abandoned land, and unoccupied residential. There are
three wetlands areas on and adjacent to the site, and many of the
3,700 dwellings located within a 1mile radius of Pease Air Force
Base (AFB) have wells and/or springs located on their associated
properties. While the Town of Newington has a largenumber of
private wells, the vast majority of Portsmouth residences are serviced
by municipal water only. From 1951 to 1991, the site was used as a
military installation by the U.S. Navy and Air Force. During its
history, Pease AFB was the home of the 100th and the 509th
Bombardment Wings, whose mission was to maintain a
combat-ready force capable of long-range bombardment operations.
The New Hampshire Air National Guard currently is stationed at the
air field area and uses some of the facilities. Over time, various
quantities of fuels, oils, solvents, lubricants, and protective coatings
were used at the base, and releases of contaminants into the
environment occurred. Zone 1 encompasses six areas of concern:
LF-2, LF-3, LF-4, LF-5 (the source area OU for the Landfill-5 area),
the Bulk Fuel Storage Area, and the Paint Can Disposal Area. The
23-acre LF-5 area was used from 1964 to 1979 as the base's primary
landfill for domestic and industrial refuse. Types of waste disposed
of in LF-5 include waste oil and solvents, paints, paint strippers and
thinners, pesticide containers, and empty cans. A small drum staging
area located at the southern entrance to the landfill was used for the
temporary storage of drums encountered onsite, miscellaneous soil,
and metals. In addition, the landfill received an estimated 20,000
gallons of sludge from the base industrial wastewater treatment plant,
which may have contained TCE residues, grass clippings, wood
chips, miscellaneous soil, and concrete rubble. There are several
surface water pathways that channel surface runoff away from the
LF-5 area toward the Piscataqua River. Surface drainage from LF-2
and LF-4, other inactive landfills in the vicinity, as well as from a
portion of LF-5, flows into ditches located on both sides of the
Railway Ditch and leads to a swampy area. A portion of LF -5's
surface runoff enters directly into Flagstone Brook and flows north
into the Piscataqua River. Site contamination has severely affected
surface waters and sediment due to overland flow and ground water
discharge. In 1983, an onsite investigation was conducted in three
stages at the Pease site as part of the Department of Defense's
Installation Restoration Program (IRP). The first stage revealed
elevated contamination levels in soil anddebris in the LF-5 area and,
in 1987, the second stage identified 5- and 55- gallon drums in the
LF-5 area as a potential threat to human health and the environment.
In 1991, as part of the third stage of the investigation, 54 85-gallon
overpacks containing drums and waste material and more than 2,000
empty, crushed drums were removed and disposed of offsite. Based
on the Phase II IRP investigation, a total of 20 sites at Pease AFB
will be investigated further. Studies conducted during the RI
determined that previous improper landfilling operations have caused
contamination of native soil and that burned refuse now is in contact
with ground water and fractured bedrock. In 1993, EPA determined
that two other landfills in Zone 1 (LF-2 and LF-4) should be
considered concurrently with LF-5. This ROD addresses onsite
contaminated soil, sediment, debris, and ground water in the LF-2,
LF-4, and LF-5 areas, as OU1. Future RODs will address ground
water contamination in Zone 1 and sediment contamination in
Flagstone Brook, onsite drainage ditches, and associated wetlands, if
necessary. The primary contaminants of concern affecting the soil,
sediment, debris, and ground water are VOCs, including benzene;
other organics, including PAHs; and metals, including arsenic,
chromium, and lead. SELECTED REMEDIAL ACTION: The
selected remedial action for this site includes excavating, dewatering,
and consolidating 221,500 yd[3] of landfill soil and debris that would
still be in contact with ground water after capping; consolidating any
soil and waste materials from LF-2 and LF-4 on LF-5; backfilling the
excavated area with clean fill to a level at least 2 feet above the
natural ground water table after capping, and placing excavated
waste above the cleanfill; excavating and consolidating 3,200 yd[3]
of sediment from the Railway Ditch that contain contaminants
exceeding site-specific cleanup goals; utilizing erosion control
measures during sediment excavation and transporting excavated
sediment to a central staging area for thickening; dewatering and
bulking excavated material, as required, and disposing of excavated
sediment onsite on LF-5; capping LF-5 after consolidation of all
waste and soil with a 1,200,000 ft[2] RCRA-approved composite
barrier cap; installing a passive gas collection system to capture and
vent landfill gases; treating ground water extracted during
dewatering process onsite using multi-media filtration, ion exchange,
and activated carbon adsorption; discharging the treated ground
water to the onsite wastewater treatment facility; disposing of all
treatment residuals including concentrated salt solution, iron sludge,
and spent activated carbon offsite; restoring any affected wetlands, as
needed; monitoring soil gas, ground water, and air; and
implementing institutional controls, including deed restrictions, and
site access restrictions such as fencing. The estimated present worth
cost for this remedial action is $23,992,000, which includes an
estimated present worth O&M cost of $6,629,721 for 30 years.
PERFORMANCE STANDARDS OR GOALS: Chemical-specific
ground water cleanup goals are based on health and ecological
risk-based concentrations for soil and solid waste in the LF-5 area
and health-based concentrations for Railway Ditch sediment, and
include arsenic 50 ug/l; benzene 5 ug/l; lead 15 ug/l; and TCE 5 ug/l
for ground water; arsenic 0.508 mg/kg and lead 0.065 mg/kg for soil
and debris; and arsenic 33 mg/kg; lead 35 mg/kg; and total PAHs 4
mg/kg for sediment. Deed restrictions will be implemented to restrict
future construction activities that could violate the integrity of the
cap.
Remedy:
This action addresses the principal threat posed by Landfill 5 by
preventing endangerment of public health, welfare, or the
environment by implementation of this ROD which calls for
consolidation and containment of landfill wastes. The selected
remedy includes excavation and consolidation, above the
groundwater table, of saturated Landfill 5 debris and construction of
a cap over Landfill 5. It is also proposed that all soil and debris from
Landfills 2 and 4 would be excavated and transported to Landfill 5
for consolidation and used as subgrade fill material prior to capping
of Landfill 5. A final decision under CERCLA for Landfills 2 and 4
will be required prior to implementation of the proposed
consolidation plan. The selected remedy also includes extraction of
groundwater to facilitate excavation of saturated landfill debris,
treatment of the groundwater in an on-site mobile treatment system
and discharge of treated groundwater to the base wastewater
treatment facility. The selected remedy is expected to prevent the
potential for direct contact between contaminated landfill soils/debris
and human and ecological receptors, and to minimize contaminant
leaching to sediments and surface waters of Flagstone Brook and
Railway Ditch and to groundwater. The treatment processes used to
treat groundwater extracted during construction dewatering will
ultimately be selected by the remedial contractor providing the
mobile treatment system. Technologies considered in the Feasibility
Study include carbon adsorption, ion exchange and multi-media
filtration.
The preferred discharge method for the treated water is to the base
wastewater treatment facility. Coordination with the City of
Portsmouth as the current operator, would be required prior to
discharge. Treated water will meet the pretreatment criteria
established by the City of Portsmouth. Ultimate discharge will be to
the Great Bay via a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) permit.
As part of Landfill 5 closure the Air Force will submit a monitoring
program for approval by the NHDES and the USEPA. The purpose
of the monitoring program is to verify the effectiveness of the
containment system.
Text:
Full-text ROD document follows on next page.
EPA/ROD/R01-93/083
1993
EPA Superfund
Record of Decision:
PEASE AIR FORCE BASE
EPA ID: NH7570024847
OU 01
PORTSMOUTH/NEWINGTON, NH
09/27/1993
Record of Decision For A Source Area Remedial Action At Landfill 5 (OU1)
Pease Air Force Base, NH
September 1993
Prepared for:
Headquarters Air Force Base Disposal Agency (HQ AFBDA)
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
LANDFILL 5
RECORD OF DECISION
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Section
Title
DECLARATION
I.
SITE NAME, LOCATION, AND DESCRIPTION
II.
SITE HISTORY AND ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES
A.
B.
Site Use and Response History
Enforcement History
III.
COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION
IV.
SCOPE AND ROLE OF OPERABLE UNIT OR RESPONSE ACTION
V.
SUMMARY OF SITE CHARACTERISTICS
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
VI.
SUMMARY OF SITE RISKS
A.
B.
VII.
Statutory Requirements/Response Objectives
Technology and Alternative Development and Screening
DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES
A.
IX.
Human Health Risk Assessment
Ecological Risk Assessment
DEVELOPMENT AND SCREENING OF ALTERNATIVES
A.
B.
VIII.
Subsurface Soils and Solid Waste
Surface Soils
Surface Water and Sediments
Groundwater
Wetlands
Source Control Alternatives Analyzed
SUMMARY OF THE COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
G.
H.
I.
X.
Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment
Compliance with ARARs
Long-Term Effectiveness and Permanence
Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility, or Volume through Treatment
Short-Term Effectiveness
Implementability
Cost
State Acceptance
Community Acceptance
THE SELECTED REMEDY
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
XI.
Methodology for Cleanup Level Determination
Groundwater Cleanup Levels/Treatment Goals
Landfill Soil and Solid Waste Cleanup Levels
Sediment Cleanup Levels
Surface Water Cleanup Levels
Description of Remedial Components
STATUTORY DETERMINATION
A. The Selected Remedy is Protective of Human Health and the Environment
B. The Selected Remedy Attains ARARs
C. The Selected Remedial Action is Cost-Effective
D. The Selected Remedy Utilizes Permanent Solutions and Alternative Treatment or Resource
Recovery Technologies to the Maximum Extent Practicable
E. The Selected Remedy Does Not Satisfy the Preference for Treatment which Permanently and
Significantly Reduces the Toxicity, Mobility, or Volume of the Hazardous Substances as a
Principal Element
XII.
DOCUMENTATION OF SIGNIFICANT CHANGES
XIII. STATE ROLE
XIV.
ACRONYMS/REFERENCES
APPENDIX
APPENDIX
APPENDIX
APPENDIX
A
B
C
D
-
ARARS FOR THE LANDFILL 5 SELECTED REMEDY (ALTERNATIVE SC-2A)
DECLARATION OF CONCURRENCE
RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY
ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD INDEX
LIST OF TABLES
Table No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
Title
Summary of Site Investigations, LF-5 and Vicinity
Summary of Elevated Metals Concentrations in Soil
Locations of Elevated Dissolved Metals Concentrations in Groundwater
Chemicals of Concern in Main Soils
Chemicals of Concern in Hot Spot Soils - Drum Removal Area
Chemicals of Concern in Hot Spot Soils - Staged UST Locations
Chemicals of Concern in Groundwater
Chemicals of Concern in Surface Water - Flagstone Brook
Chemicals of Concern in Surface Water - Railway Ditch
Chemicals of Concern in Sediment - Flagstone Brook
Chemicals of Concern in Sediment - Railway Ditch
Summary of Chemicals of Concern by Medium
Summary of Exposure Parameters
Summary of Total Lifetime Cancer Risks and Hazard Indices
Summary of Detailed Alternatives Evaluation
Zone 1 Cleanup Goal Selection - Groundwater
Site-Specific Cleanup Goal Selection, Landfill Soil and Solid Waste
Zone 1 Cleanup Goal Selection for the Railway Ditch and Flagstone Brook- Sediment
Zone 1 Cleanup Goal Selection for the Railway Ditch and Flagstone Brook- Surface Water
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Title
General Land Use Map
Landfill 5 (LF-5) Site Map
Location of Delineated Wetlands
Distribution of Organics in Subsurface Soils
Distribution of Organics in Surface Soils
Distribution of Organics in Surface Water
Distribution of Organics in Sediments
Distribution of Organics in Groundwater
Remedial Process Flow Sheet for Alternative SC-2A
Detail of Typical Final Cover System - Landfill Barrier Cap
Proposed Final Grades Landfill Barrier Cap
Wetlands Potentially Impacted by Landfill Barrier Cap
DECLARATION
SITE NAME AND LOCATION
Pease Air Force Base (PAFB), Landfill 5, New Hampshire
STATEMENT OF BASIS AND PURPOSE
This decision document presents a selected source control remedial action designed to provide containment
of landfill wastes at Landfill 5, Pease AFB, NH. This decision document was developed in accordance with
the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act as amended by the Superfund
Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986, and, to the extent practicable, the National Contingency
Plan. Through this document the Air Force plans to remedy the threat to human health, welfare or the
environment posed by contaminated soil, debris, and sediment associated with Landfill 5. Contaminated
groundwater, surface water, and additional sediment associated with Landfill 5 will be addressed in the
Zone 1 FS. This decision is based on the Administrative Record for the site. The Administrative Record
for the site is located at the Information Repository in Building 43 at Pease International Tradeport
(formerly Pease AFB, New Hampshire). The Administrative Record Index as applies to Landfill 5 may be
found in Appendix D.
The State of New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services (NHDES) and the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency (USEPA) concur with the selected remedy.
ASSESSMENT OF THE SITE
Actual or threatened releases of hazardous substances from Landfill 5, if not addressed by implementing
the response action selected in this Record of Decision (ROD), may present an imminent and substantial
endangerment to public health, welfare, or the environment.
DESCRIPTION OF THE SELECTED REMEDY
This action addresses the principal threat posed by Landfill 5 by preventing endangerment of public
health,, welfare, or the environment by implementation of this ROD which calls for consolidation and
containment of landfill wastes.
The selected remedy includes excavation and consolidation, above the groundwater table, of saturated
Landfill 5 debris and construction of a cap over Landfill 5. It is also proposed that all soil and debris
from Landfills 2 and 4 would be excavated and transported to Landfill 5 for consolidation and used as
subgrade fill material prior to capping of Landfill 5. A final decision under CERCLA for Landfills 2 and
4 will be required prior to implementation of the proposed consolidation plan. The selected remedy also
includes extraction of groundwater to facilitate excavation of saturated landfill debris, treatment of
the groundwater in an on-site mobile treatment system and discharge of treated groundwater to the base
wastewater treatment facility.
The selected remedy is expected to prevent the potential for direct contact between contaminated landfill
soils/debris and human and ecological receptors, and to minimize contaminant leaching to sediments and
surface waters of Flagstone Brook and Railway Ditch and to groundwater.
The treatment processes used to treat groundwater extracted during construction dewatering will
ultimately be selected by the remedial contractor providing the mobile treatment system. Technologies
considered in the Feasibility Study include carbon adsorption, ion exchange and multi-media filtration.
The preferred discharge method for the treated water is to the base wastewater treatment facility.
Coordination with the City of Portsmouth as the current operator, would be required prior to discharge.
Treated water will meet the pretreatment criteria established by the City of Portsmouth. Ultimate
discharge will be to the Great Bay via a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit.
As part of Landfill 5 closure the Air Force will submit a monitoring program for approval by the NHDES
and the USEPA. The purpose of the monitoring program is to verify the effectiveness of the containment
system.
STATUTORY DETERMINATIONS
The selected source control remedy is protective of human health and the environment, complies with
federal and state requirements, that are legally applicable or relevant and appropriate to the remedial
action, is cost effective and uses permanent solutions. Treatment is not the principal element of the
source control alternative because treatment of landfill debris is not practical or cost-effective given
the size and heterogeneity of the landfill contents. The selected source control remedy may however
involve treatment of groundwater extracted during construction dewatering, which should remove much of
the contaminants currently present in groundwater. Because this remedy will result in hazardous
substances remaining on site, a review will be conducted by the USAF, the USEPA, and the NHDES within
five years after landfill closure to ensure that the remedy is providing adequate protection of human
health and the environment. This review will be conducted at least every five years as long as hazardous
substances remain on site above health-based cleanup levels.
The foregoing represents the selection of a remedial action by the United States Air Force and the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region I, with concurrence of the New Hampshire Department of
Environmental Services.
Concur and recommended for immediate implementation:
I.
SITE NAME, LOCATION, AND DESCRIPTION
Pease AFB is a National Priorities List site consisting of numerous areas of contamination. This ROD
addresses source area contamination at Landfill-5 (LF-5). LF-5 encompasses approximately 23 acres in the
northern section of Pease AFB. Records indicate that LF-5 was used continuously from 1964 to
1975 as the primary base landfill, although some disposal occurred as late as 1979. Domestic and
industrial refuse reportedly disposed of in the landfill includes waste oils and solvents, paints, paint
strippers and thinners, pesticide containers and empty cans and drums. In addition, the landfill
received sludge from the base industrial wastewater treatment plant. LF-5 has been investigated under
the Air Force Installation Restoration Program (IRP). Results of the investigation indicate that
sediments, surface water, soil and groundwater have been impacted by activities at LF-5.
The 4,365-acre Pease Air Force Base (AFB) is located in the towns of Portsmouth and Newington, Rockingham
County, New Hampshire (approximately 3 miles northwest of the City of Portsmouth). As shown in Figure 1,
Pease AFB is located on a peninsula bounded on the west and southwest by Great Bay; on the northwest by
Little Bay; and on the north and northeast by the Piscataqua River. The base is situated in the
approximate center of the peninsula.
At the beginning of World War II, an airport at the current Pease AFB location was used by the U.S. Navy.
The Air Force assumed control of the site in 1951, and construction of the present facility was completed
in 1956. During its history, Pease AFB has been the home of the 100th Bombardment Wing and the 509th
Bombardment Wing whose mission was to maintain a combat-ready force capable of long-range bombardment
operations. Over time, various quantities of fuels, oils, solvents, lubricants, and protective coatings
were used at the base, and releases of contaminants into the environment occurred.
The New Hampshire Air National Guard (NHANG) relocated the 157th Military Airlift Group (MAG) from
Grenier Field at Manchester, NH, to Pease AFB in 1966. The mission of the group was changed in 1975, when
it was designated as the 157th Air Refueling Group.
In December 1988, Pease AFB was selected as one of 86 military installations to be closed by the
Secretary of Defense's Commission on Base Realignment and Closure. The base was closed as an active
military reservation on 31 March 1991. The New Hampshire Air National Guard remains at the airfield and
will use some of the existing facilities. The remainder of the reservation will be divided between the
State of New Hampshire's Pease Development Authority (PDA), the Department of the Interior, and the USAF.
Land use in the vicinity of LF-5 varies. LF-5 is bordered by Merrimac Drive to the north, an abandoned
railroad bed to the east; Flagstone Brook to the west; and a Bulk Fuel Storage Area (BFSA) to the
southeast (see Figure 2). Zone features near LF-5 include Landfill-2 (LF-2) to the northeast; Landfill -3
(LF-3) to the east; the BFSA to the southeast; a Paint Can Disposal Area (PCDA) to the south; the Air
National Guard's (NHANG) North Ramp to the west; and Landfill-4 (LF-4) to the northwest (see Figure 1).
LF-2, LF-3, LF-4, LF-5, and the PCDA are inactive disposal areas located within restricted access areas.
The BFSA is still used by the NHANG for bulk fuel storage. The NHANG uses the north ramp for large
aircraft maintenance and as a temporary staging area. Undeveloped land is located along the western
boundary of LF-5.
A portion of the site located at the southern entrance of LF-5 was used as a temporary staging area for
drums that were removed from the eastern area of LF-5 in the fall of 1989. This area continues to be
used to temporarily store drummed solids and liquids generated during investigation activities conducted
as part of the basewide Installation Restoration Program (IRP). Stored drummed solids and liquids are
eventually disposed of off-base.
Off-base, a commercial and residential area is located along Spaulding Turnpike, approximately 1,000 feet
northeast of the Pease AFB eastern boundary and approximately 1,500 feet north of LF-5. An abandoned
outdoor theater and a water supply booster station are located approximately 150 feet north of the Pease
AFB boundary. A small shop and a shopping mall are located on the eastern side of Spaulding Turnpike.
There are 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, it was determined that a number of these dwellings have wells
and or springs located on their associated properties. The Town of Newington in particular has a large
number of private wells. The vast majority of Portsmouth residences surveyed are serviced by town water
only. A complete compilation of area springs and wells for Pease AFB, based on information available to
date can be found in the Pease AFB Off-Base Well Inventory Letter Report (F-518). Information is
presented in tabular form in Tables 1 through 7 of the Letter Report. Well location maps are provided as
attachments to the report.
Pease AFB is located on a peninsula within the Piscataqua River drainage basin (see Figure 1). Drainage
is radially away from the peninsula, into Great Bay toward the west, Little Bay to the northwest and
north, and the Piscataqua River to the east. Little Bay flows into the Piscataqua River at the northern
end of the peninsula. Great Bay, Little Bay, and the Piscataqua River are all tidally influenced.
Consequently, these bodies of water are subject to semidiurnal water-level variations.
There are several surface water pathways that channel surface runoff away from the LF-5 area toward the
Piscataqua River (see Figure 2). Surface drainage from LF-2, and portions of LF-3 and LF-5, flows into
ditches located on both sides of the railway spur (collectively known as the Railway Ditch), which
subsequently flows north and enters a swampy area east of the railroad tracks. The Railway Ditch
eventually joins with Flagstone Brook, approximately 3,000 feet north of LF-5.
A portion of LF-5's surface runoff flows directly into Flagstone Brook, which flows north through a
series of weirs and empties into the Piscataqua River near the General Sullivan Bridge. The total
drainage area of the stormwater collection system within the headwaters of Flagstone Brook is
approximately 78 acres, which includes a number of industrial areas of the base. Below the confluence of
the eastern and western branches, Flagstone Brook flows north along the western edge of LF-5. Surface
runoff seeps from LF-5 discharge directly into Flagstone Brook.
In addition to the Railway Ditch and Flagstone Brook, several wetland areas exist in the LF-5 vicinity.
On and immediately adjacent to the landfill are three wetlands: Wetlands XV, XVI, and XVII (see Figure
3). Wetlands XVI drains to Flagstone Brook and Wetlands XV and XVII drain to the Railway Ditch. East of
the landfill, between the railroad and Merrimac Drive, are Wetlands I, II, III, IV, V, and VI. Wetlands
I, III, IV, and V drain toward Merrimac Drive, and Wetlands II and VI drain to the Railway Ditch. North
of the landfill, there are several wetlands associated with the Railway Ditch and Flagstone Brook.
Wetlands VII and VIII are associated with the Railway Ditch until it reaches Wetlands IX and joins
Flagstone Brook through a culvert under the railroad. Wetlands X is located north of LF-5 and west of
Flagstone Brook and has no identified surface water connection to Flagstone Brook. However, subsurface
flow may exist under the roadbed. West of the landfill, Wetlands XIII is immediately adjacent to
Flagstone Brook and a portion of it flows into Flagstone Brook near its conjunction with Merrimac Drive.
It is not known if LF-5 is within a 100-year flood plain, since flood plain location maps were not
available for Pease AFB. A more complete description of the site can be found in the Stage 3C Landfill-5
Remedial Investigation (RI) Report (F-500).
II.
A.
SITE HISTORY AND ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES
Site Use and Response History
Records indicate that LF-5 was used continuously from 1964 to 1975 as the primary base landfill, although
some disposal occurred as late as 1979. Domestic and industrial refuse reportedly disposed of in the
landfill includes waste oils and solvents, paints, paint strippers and thinners, pesticide containers,
and empty cans and drums. In addition, the landfill received an estimated 20,000 gallons of sludge from
the base industrial wastewater treatment plant. Sludge from the base wastewater treatment facility,
which may have contained trichloroethylene (TCE) residues, grass clippings, wood chips, miscellaneous
soils, and concrete rubble, was temporarily stored at the landfill pending ultimate disposal. As
previously discussed, a small drum staging area used for temporary storage of drums encountered on-base,
miscellaneous soils, and metals is located at the southern landfill entrance. Based on aerial
photographs, this area may have been a drum storage area as early as 1960.
One method of landfilling used between 1964 and 1975 was trenching. Based on review of aerial photographs
and other information, trenches were constructed 15 to 20 feet wide, 150 to 300 feet long, and 6 to 8
feet deep (or to bedrock). The trenches were then filled with refuse and covered with local fill. Today,
the settled trenches appear to cover about one-third of the 23-acre landfill. The trenches are located in
the north-central, central, and southwestern portions of the landfill. Surface filling or backfilling
was also a major landfilling technique used at LF-5. The fill between the trench areas was probably
emplaced using these methods. In 1983, an IRP Phase I Problem Identification/Records Search was
conducted at Pease AFB. The study identified LF-5 as a potential source for the release of contaminants
into the environment. In response to this finding, a pre-survey was conducted to obtain sufficient
information for use in the planning of a more detailed study. The pre-survey was completed in 1984.
Based on the pre-survey, Remedial Investigations (RIs) were conducted in accordance with the
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), as amended by the
Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA) of 1986, at LF-5 and at 18 other IRP sites at Pease
AFB. The investigations were conducted in three stages between 1984 and 1991.
During Stage 2 of the investigation (October 1987 through May 1989) 5- and 55-gallon drums were
identified in LF-5. Because these drums were determined to present a potential threat to human health
and the environment, fast-track remedial action was initiated. Drum removal was
completed during Stage 3 RI field activities. The RI field work was completed in October 1991. During
drum removal, 54 85-gallon overpacks containing drums and waste material and over 2,000 empty, crushed
drums were removed and disposed of at a licensed off-base disposal facility.
To date, LF-5 RI activities have included geophysical surveys, sampling of surface and subsurface soils,
test pit investigations, sampling of groundwater beneath and surrounding LF-5, sampling of sediments and
surface water in Flagstone Brook and the Railway Ditch, a wetlands determination in the area of LF-5, and
measurement of groundwater levels and hydraulic gradients at LF-5. Table 1 provides a summary of RI
activities performed to date.
A more detailed description of the LF-5 site history can be found in the RI in Subsection 2.1.
B.
Enforcement History
The enforcement history at LF-5 is summarized as follows:
•
In 1976, the Department of Defense (DOD) devised a comprehensive Installation Restoration Program
(IRP) to assess and control environmental contamination that may have resulted from past
operations and disposal practices at DOD facilities.
•
In 1983, an IRP Phase I Problem Identification/Records Search was conducted at Pease AFB.
result, a total of 18 IRP sites were identified and 16 were recommended for follow-on
investigations (Phase II).
•
In 1984, Phase II (Problem Confirmation and Quantification) was initiated via conducting a
presurvey to obtain sufficient information to plan a more detailed study. Based on the presurvey
results, LF-5 and 19 other IRP sites (three areas were dropped and four areas were added as IRP
sites) were recommended for further study and were entered into the RI/FS process (F-447).
•
In October 1987, the Air Force initiated a second part of the Phase II study (Stage 2). At this
point, the IRP approach was adjusted to be consistent with the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency's (EPA) Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study (RI/FS) terminology and philosophy. Stage
As a
2 field activities were concluded in May 1989.
•
Following groundwater analyses in Phase II (Stage 2), five sites were identified for initiation of
interim remedial measures (IRMs). LF-5 was among these sites, due to the presence of buried drums
in the landfill and due to high contaminant levels in LF-5 soils and groundwater (F-455).
•
On 14 July 1989, Pease AFB was proposed for addition to the National Priorities List (NPL).
effective date of addition was February 1990.
•
In 1990, a Technical Review Committee (TRC) was established to facilitate communication and
coordination among various agencies and the public concerning Pease AFB IRP activities. The TRC
assists in keeping the local community apprised of investigative/remedial actions and findings at
Pease AFB. The TRC is comprised of individuals representing the Air Force; NHDES; EPA; PDA; the
Towns of Newington, Greenland, and Portsmouth; and a community representative. TRC meetings are
held monthly.
•
On 24 April 1991, the U.S. 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 (RD/RA) processes at Pease AFB.
•
In October 1991 (Stage 3), a drum removal IRM was conducted at LF-5. During field activities 54
85-gallon overpacks containing drums, waste materials, and over 2,000 empty, crushed drums were
removed and disposed of at an off-base, licensed facility (F-463).
The
As part of the timetable established in the FFA, the U.S. Air Force, in an effort to streamline
activities, designed a basewide strategy plan for conducting an RI/FS investigation. This strategy plan
grouped the numerous sites into seven zones. The zones were delineated based on hydrogeological
similarities, analytical results, geographical location, surface features, and types of source areas
contained within the zones. RI/FS reports have been or will be prepared for each zone. As noted for
Stage II, prior to inclusion of Pease AFB on the NPL, five sites, including LF-5, were on an accelerated
RI/FS approach because of the potential threat they posed to human health and the environment. The U.S.
Air Force, EPA, and NHDES agreed that the source area RI/FS reports, as well as the remedial actions at
these sites, would continue on an accelerated track toward source area cleanup,
independent of the zones in which they were contained.
•
In April 1992, the U.S. Air Force submitted a Draft Final RI Report for LF-5 (F-500).
•
In August 1992, the U.S. Air Force submitted a Draft Final FS for LF-5 (F-494).
III.
COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION
Throughout the site's history, the community has been actively involved. EPA, NHDES, and the U.S. Air
Force have kept the community and other interested parties apprised of site activities through
informational meetings, fact sheets, press releases, public meetings, and TRC meetings.
During January 1991, the U.S. Air Force released a community relations plan, which outlined a program to
address community concerns and keep citizens informed about and involved in remedial activities. This
plan was updated and released in the summer of 1993.
Numerous fact sheets have been released by the U.S. Air Force throughout the IRP program at Pease AFB.
These fact sheets are intended to keep the public and other concerned parties apprised of developments
and milestones in the Pease IRP. The fact sheets released to date that concern LF-5 are summarized as
follows:
Fact Sheet
Release Date
Pease AFB Installation Restoration Program Update
October 1991
Pease AFB Installation Restoration Program Update
December 1992
Proposed Plan for Landfill-5 Source Area
January 1993
Revised Proposed Plan for Landfill-5 Source Area
July 1993
In addition to the fact sheets, a number of public meetings have been held concerning the remediation of
LF-5. On 14 November 1991 an IRP update public meeting was held and on 12 January 1993 and IRP public
workshop and meeting was conducted to provide the public with information on the status of the IRP at
Pease AFB. On 27 January 1993 the U.S. Air Force conducted a public hearing and information session for
the LF-5 Proposed Plan, during which oral comments on the Proposed Plan were received. A transcript of
oral comments received during this meeting and U.S. Air Force response to comments are included in the
attached Responsiveness Summary (Appendix C). In addition, a public comment period for the Proposed Plan
was conducted between 14 January and 13 February 1993. Responses to written comments
received during this period are also included in Appendix C.
TRC meetings have been held on a monthly basis since 1990 (see Subsection II.B). Through these meetings,
lines of communication among the public and the various lead agencies have been kept open.
On 5 August 1993, the U.S. Air Force conducted a public hearing and information session for the Revised
Proposed Plan for LF-5 during which comments on the Proposed Plan were received. A transcript of
comments received during this meeting and the U.S. Air Force response to comments are included in the
attached Responsiveness Summary (Appendix C). In addition, a public comment period for both the Revised
Proposed Plan for Landfill-5 and the Proposed Plan for Landfills-2 and -4 was held from 20 July to 19
August 1993. Responses to written comments received during that period are also included in Appendix C.
A complete information repository, containing documents relating to the Pease AFB IRP, is maintained at
Pease AFB in Building 43. An administrative record pertaining to the Pease AFB IRP is located in
Building 43 of Pease AFB. An index of the administrative record is maintained in the EPA Region I
Headquarters.
IV.
SCOPE AND ROLE OF OPERABLE UNIT OR RESPONSE ACTION
Zone 1 encompasses six areas of concern, including the source area operable unit for LF-5. Other areas
of concern include LF-2, LF-3, and LF-4, the BFSA, and the PCDA. The remedy presented in this Record of
Decision (ROD) provides for source control at LF-5. Remediation at a Superfund site typically involves
activities to remove or isolate contaminant source materials in conjunction with activities that mitigate
migration of contamination through groundwater, surface water, and/or air pathways. This
ROD addresses only source control measures. Management of contaminant migration will be addressed in a
separate ROD for Zone 1, which is scheduled for completion in September 1994.
Source materials at LF-5 have been identified as landfill soil and solid wastes, landfill surficial
soils, and sediment in the Railway Ditch and associated wetlands. Although sediment in Flagstone Brook
may represent an additional source, contaminants present in this medium may be directly related to runoff
from other sources and, therefore, are addressed in the Zone 1 Draft FS, which was completed in August
1993, rather than in the LF-5 source control FS. Groundwater and surface water are not considered source
materials, however, remedial action objectives (RAOs) and cleanup goals have been established for these
media, as well as for the source materials, since they will be affected by source control activities.
Subsequent to the completion and public review of the original Proposed Plan for LF-5, it was proposed
that two additional source areas, LF-2 and LF-4, be excavated (in their entirety) and consolidated on
LF-5. The volume increase of materials consolidated on LF-5 would total approximately 76,320 cubic yards
(yd[3]). The two landfills, which are adjacent to (in the case of LF-2) or within 200 feet (in the case
of LF-4) of LF-5, cover a total area of approximately 12 acres. The materials in LF-2 and LF-4 are
mainly soil and debris as with LF -5. In keeping with the public's desire to consolidate landfill
materials wherever possible to provide for more available land whose future use is not restricted, it was
determined that consolidation of LF-2 and LF-4 onto LF-5 would be the best strategy in terms of meeting
the public's requests. Because LF-2 and LF-4 are part of the Zone 1 operable unit, consolidation of LF-2
and LF-4 onto LF-5 will be addressed in the Zone 1 Proposed Plan and ROD. A final decision under CERCLA
will be required prior to implementation of the LF-2 and LF-4 excavation and consolidation plan.
The selected source control remedy for LF-5, as described in the Proposed Plan, was developed by
combining components of different source control technologies to aid in obtaining a comprehensive
approach for site source area remediation. In summary, the remedy provides for:
•
Excavation and consolidation of selected sediments on the existing landfill.
•
Excavation of soil and debris in LF-2 and LF-4 and consolidation on LF-5 (not included in the
original LF-5 Proposed Plan but added in the revised Proposed Plan).
•
Excavation of soil and solid wastes predicted to be below the water table after capping and
placement of excavated material on the existing landfill. Dewatering of areas requiring
excavation, on-site treatment of the extracted groundwater, and discharge to the local
publicly-owned treatment works (POTW) may be necessary.
•
Regrading and capping of the existing landfill.
•
Conducting long-term environmental monitoring and placement of institutional controls.
The remedial action addresses the following primary risks and principal threats to human health and the
environment posed by the site:
•
Risks posed to ecological receptors from direct contact with, or ingestion of, sediment in the
Railway Ditch and associated wetlands containing contaminants in excess of concentrations that may
present a risk.
•
Risks posed to humans from direct contact with, or ingestion of, contaminated soils or debris that
may present a health risk.
•
Risks posed to ecological receptors from direct contact with, or ingestion of, soil or debris
containing contaminants in excess of concentrations that may present health risks.
•
Migration of contaminants from soil or debris within the LF-5 source area into the groundwater,
which may inhibit attainment of the groundwater RAOs for Zone 1.
•
Migration of contaminants from soil or debris within the LF-5 source area into surface water,
including wetlands, which may inhibit attainment of the surface water ROAs for Zone 1.
The selected source control remedy will complete the mitigation of the site risks related to source areas
as described in Subsection 1.6 of the LF-5 FS (F-494).
V.
SUMMARY OF SITE CHARACTERISTICS
Subsections 1.3 and 1.4 of the FS contain an overview of the RI. Based on the results of the RI, a
working conceptual model was developed that incorporates all known data concerning LF-5 and vicinity,
including geological, hydrological, analytical, field measurements, and visual observations. The salient
points of the model are summarized as follows:
•
Several primary, discrete contaminant source areas exist within LF-5.
•
Landfill operations have caused the excavation of native soils down to bedrock in places;
consequently, buried refuse is in direct contact with groundwater and weathered and fractured
bedrock.
•
Contaminated soil is a likely source for some of the contaminants that have been observed in other
matrices in the LF-5 area.
•
An enhanced groundwater recharge area for LF-5 and its vicinity overlaps the central trench area.
•
Groundwater within LF-5 is contaminated with halogenated volatile organic compounds (VOCs),
aromatic VOCs, and semivolatile compounds (SVOCs); metals; and pesticides. The concentrations of
a few of these substances exceed federal and state standards.
•
Aromatic and halogenated VOCs are discharged from groundwater to surface water in the Railway
Ditch and Flagstone Brook.
•
A groundwater plume containing VOCs (halogenated) is migrating from LF-5.
•
The extent of the halogenated VOC plume east of the Railway Ditch is known; the downgradient limit
coincides with wells 5009 and 6003.
•
Surface water and sediment in Flagstone Brook appear to be affected by other sources in addition
to LF-5.
•
Surface water and sediment in the Railway Ditch appear to be significantly affected by LF-5.
The results of the RI as conceptualized are discussed in more detail in the subsections that follow.
A.
Subsurface Soils and Solid Waste
Source characterization at LF-5 included the collection and analysis of subsurface soil and solid waste
samples. Subsurface soils refer to material collected at a depth of 2 feet or greater. All subsurface
soil samples were collected from the landfill over a period of 4 years. Samples were obtained from
approximately 30 test pits and several samples were collected during drum removal operations. Figure 4
depicts the distribution of organics in subsurface soils in and adjacent to LF-5. Major findings of the
analyses of all test pit soil samples are summarized as follows:
•
The highest total SVOCs were detected within the drum removal area.
•
The highest total VOCs were detected in soils collected near the central trench area. Total
xylenes were the largest component [33 milligrams/kilogram (mg/kg)] of the total aromatic VOCs.
1,4-Dichlorobenzene (DCB) was detected in soil from the southwestern corner of the central trench
area at a concentration of 0.140 mg/kg.
•
Low concentrations of total aromatics were detected in test pit soils collected from the northern
trench area.
•
TCE was detected in soils from test pit 9014 at a concentration of 0.005 mg/kg.
•
Arsenic was detected above the background concentrations in the sample from test pit 9018. The
copper background concentration was exceeded in samples from test pit 9013. Zinc concentrations
exceeded the background concentration in samples from test pits 983, 9013, 9015, 9016, and 9018.
•
Cadmium concentrations exceeded the background concentrations in samples from test pits 9013,
9016, and 9021. The mercury background concentration was exceeded in samples from test pits 9016
and 9017.
Lead concentrations exceeded the background concentration in samples from test pits
982, 983, 984, and 9016. The nickel background concentration was exceeded in the sample from test
pit 9015.
Soil samples from test pits 9016 and 9020 were also subjected to the Toxicity Characteristic Leaching
Procedure (TCLP). Leachate was analyzed for VOCs, SVOCs, metals, pesticides, and herbicides. Laboratory
data indicate that no TCLP regulatory limits were exceeded.
Contaminants in subsurface soils at LF-5 are of concern since they are, in some landfill areas, in
contact with groundwater and have the potential to migrate from the site via this medium.
B.
Surface Soils
A total of 32 landfill surface soil samples (336 through 367) were collected from a depth of 0 to 2 feet
to characterize the landfill cover soil. Surficial (0 to 2 feet) test pit samples were also used to
describe the landfill cover soils. Figure 5 depicts the distribution of organics in surface soils in and
adjacent to LF-5. The results of the laboratory analyses may be summarized as follows:
•
Aromatic and halogenated VOCs were detected at low concentrations in soils collected from all
areas of the landfill. The highest concentrations were detected in soils from test pit 983 and
soil sample 357.
•
SVOCs were detected in all soil samples. From areas outside the drum removal area, total
concentrations ranged from 0.06 mg/kg(9013) to 1,684 mg/kg (360). Most of the highest total SVOCs
were detected in soil samples collected from the drum removal area (345,354, and 355) and test
pits from the drum removal area (982, 983, and 984).
•
Polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) (e.g., chrysene) were most often detected in soil from
the drum removal area.
•
The highest concentrations of total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPHs) were detected in the samples
from location 364 (2,500 mg/kg) from the northern trench area and location 345 (2,200 mg/kg) from
the drum removal area.
•
Pesticides were detected in most of the surface soil samples. Both heptachlor and dieldrin were
elevated in the sample from location 354 (drum removal area), and dieldrin was detected in the
sample from locations 366 and 984.
•
Most of the samples that contained metals that exceeded the background concentrations were
collected from the drum removal area and the northern trench area. Table 2 includes a summary of
locations and concentrations that have metals concentrations that exceed background in surface
soils at LF-5.
•
One surface soil sample (9013) was subjected to TCLP. Leachate from the test was analyzed for
VOCs, SVOCs, metals, pesticides, and herbicides. Preliminary laboratory data indicate that TCLP
regulatory limits were not exceeded.
Contaminants in surface soils at LF-5 are of concern because of the potential for direct human and
ecological receptor contact with these soils and the potential for contaminants in surface soils to
migrate to surrounding surface water bodies and wetlands.
C.
Surface Water and Sediments
The LF-5 surface drainage system consists of two main drainage channels. The first, Flagstone Brook, has
its headwaters at the North Ramp and flows northward forming the western boundary of LF-5. The second,
the Railway Ditch, flows northward along the eastern border of LF-5, eventually joining Flagstone Brook,
approximately 3,000 feet north of LF-5. Flagstone Brook eventually drains to the Piscataqua River to the
east of Pease AFB.
Nine surface water/sediment stations were sampled to characterize Flagstone Brook, while 15 stations were
sampled to determine the impact of LF-5 on the Railway Ditch. Sampling results and data interpretation
are discussed in Subsection 4.5 of the Zone 1 Draft Final RI (F-500). The sampling history of all LF-5
surface waters and sediment stations is summarized in Appendix B of that document. Figures 6 and 7
present the distribution of organics in LF-5 surface waters and sediments, respectively.
Tetrachloroethene (PCE) is the only VOC confirmed in the surface waters of Flagstone Brook at
concentrations greater than 1 microgram per liter (ug/L). This sample was collected at station 821 during
the January 1990 sampling round. No SVOCs were detected in the Flagstone Brook surface waters. The
pesticide DDT and its metabolite DDE were the only pesticides confirmed in Flagstone Brook surface
waters; these two compounds were detected at concentrations of 0.14 ug/L and 0.2 ug/L, respectively, at
station 819 during the May 1989 sampling round. Polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) were not detected at any
location.
The highest concentrations of aromatic VOCs and SVOCs in the Flagstone Brook watershed were detected at
seeps 8079 and 826, respectively. Total aromatic VOCs were detected at 54 ug/L for station 8079 during
the October 1991 sampling round, and the SVOC 4-methylphenol was detected at 3.0 ug/L for station 826
during the September 1989 sampling round.
DDT (station 819) was the only organic compound detected in the Flagstone Brook watershed that exceeded
ambient water quality criteria (AWQC) (0.001 ug/L).
VOCs were not detected in any of the sediment samples taken in Flagstone Brook; however, VOCs were
detected in seep sediments. The VOCs detected in sediments were chlorobenzene (0.07 mg/kg) and 1,4-DCB
(0.002 mg/kg) at seep 8079. SVOCs have been detected in the sediments of all but two of the stations
(stations 821 and 821A) in the Flagstone Brook watershed. Stations 8031 and 8032 had the highest total
sediment SVOC concentrations, 3.07 mg/kg and 2.48 mg/kg, respectively. The greatest contributors to the
total SVOC concentrations at all stations were PAHs. It is important to note that the highest total SVOC
concentration was reported for station 8031, which is upgradient from LF-5. This implies that sources
other than LF-5 are contributing SVOCs and possibly other contaminants to surface water and sediments in
the Flagstone Brook drainage.
Pesticides/PCBs were detected in the sediments at six stations in the Flagstone Brook drainage. The
highest total pesticide/PCB concentration was detected at the upgradient station (8031) and was based on
a single hit of 1.00 mg/kg for heptachlor epoxide. Other pesticides/PCBs observed in Flagstone Brook
drainage sediments, and the number of stations at which they were reported include: 4,4'-DDT (4),
4,4'-DDE (3), gamma-chlordane (1), and Aroclor-1260 (1).
Inorganic concentrations in surface waters in the Flagstone Brook drainage were compared with the State
of New Hampshire freshwater chronic criteria for the protection of aquatic life, when available. Metals
for which criteria are hardness- or pH-dependent have been adjusted assuming hardness of 20 mg/L and pH
of 6.5. The state AWQC for seven inorganics were exceeded at one or more stations in the Flagstone Brook
drainage. Zinc concentrations at stations 819, 819A, 826, 8031, and 8079 exceeded the state AWQC (0.027
mg/L). The state AWQC for iron (1.0 mg/L) was exceeded at stations 819, 826, 8031, and 8079; and the
state AWQC for lead (0.000041 mg/L) was exceeded at three stations (826, 8031, and 8079). The four other
compounds that exceeded surface water criteria and the number of stations are beryllium (1), copper (2),
nickel (1), and thallium (1).
Inorganic sediment concentrations in the Flagstone Brook drainage were compared to concentrations at
upgradient station 8031. Station 8031 had the highest detected concentrations of barium (445 mg/kg) and
chromium (91.9 mg/kg) in sediments when compared to other Flagstone Brook drainage samples. In general,
inorganic sediment concentrations did not exceed the upgradient sample by more than an order of
magnitude, the exceptions being mercury and beryllium, which were not detected at station 8031. Mercury
was identified in a duplicate sample taken at station 8032 (0.15 mg/kg) in June 1991. Beryllium was
identified at stations 819A (0.27 mg/kg) and 8079 (0.41 mg/kg) during June and October 1991 sampling,
respectively. The only other compound that exceeded the upgradient concentration by more than an order
of magnitude was aluminum, which was detected at station 826 (20,800 mg/kg) in a sample collected in
September 1989.
Aromatic and halogenated VOCs were detected in surface water at nine stations in the Railway Ditch during
the 1991 field investigations at LF-5 (see Figure 7). Aromatic VOCs detected included chlorobenzene,
benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, trimethylbenzene, and butylbenzene. Chlorobenzene was the most
frequently detected and also showed the highest concentration of 2.0 ug/L at station 8073. Halogenated
VOCs were detected at the same stations where aromatic VOCs were present. Halogenated VOC contaminants
included PCE, TCE, transand cis-1,2-dichloroethene (DCE), 1,1-DCA, 1,4-DCB, and 1,2-DCB. TCE,
cis-1,2-DCE, 1,1-dichloroethane (DCA), and 1,4-DCB were the dominant halogenated VOCs present in Railway
Ditch surface water. TCE was detected at the highest concentration (9 ug/L at station 8074). No
aromatic or halogenated VOCs were detected in surface water downstream of station 827. The area of
aromatic/halogenated VOC surface water contamination extends from staff gage 8061 downstream to station
820/822.
No SVOCs were detected in surface water sampled from the Railway Ditch. The pesticide DDT and its
metabolite 4,4'-DDD were detected in surface water collected from four Railway Ditch stations (820, 827,
828, and 8074). The highest concentrations of DDT and 4,4'-DDD in surface water were detected at
staff gage 820. No herbicides or PCBs were detected in Railway Ditch surface waters.
Aromatic VOCs were detected in sediments at nine stations in the Railway Ditch during the 1991 field
investigations at LF-5 (see Figure 7). Aromatic VOCs detected included chlorobenzene, 1,2-DCB, methylene
chloride, 2butanone, toluene, and acetone; 2-butanone had the highest detected concentration of 0.2 mg/kg
at station 8061. Halogenated VOCs were detected in sediment at three stations in the Railway Ditch and
included 1,2-DCE, TCE, and 1,1DCA. The aromatic VOC 1,2-DCE was detected in the highest concentration at
station 8036 (0.45 mg/kg). Aromatic VOCs were detected in sediments in the upper Railway Ditch from
staff gage 8061 downstream to station 8074, while halogenated VOCs were detected at stations 8074, 8036,
and 8073. No VOCs were detected in sediments sampled below station 8074.
SVOCs were detected in sediments sampled at eight stations in the Railway Ditch. Phenanthrene,
fluoranthene, and pyrene were the most common SVOCs out of a total of 15 SVOC compounds detected. The
highest SVOC concentration detected in Railway Ditch sediments was a 27-mg/kg concentration of benzoic
acid at station 824. SVOCs were detected throughout the Railway Ditch system from station 824 downstream
to station 8033.
Pesticides were detected in sediments at 10 stations in the Railway Ditch. DDT was the most widely
distributed pesticide in the Railway Ditch sediments and was detected at six stations. The DDT
metabolites 4,4-DDE and 4,4-DDD were both detected at seven stations in the Railway Ditch. The highest
sediment concentration of pesticide (DDT) was detected at station 8036. No herbicides or PCBs were
detected in Railway Ditch sediments.
Inorganic concentrations detected in surface waters of the Railway Ditch drainage were compared with the
State of New Hampshire freshwater chronic criteria for the protection of aquatic life. State AWQC for
five inorganics were exceeded at one or more stations in the Railway Ditch drainage. Arsenic
concentrations at stations 8036, 8037, and 8073 exceeded the state AWQC (0.048 mg/L). State AWQC for
copper (0.003 mg/L) was exceeded at stations 8035 and 8061. A total of 10 stations (820, 823, 827, 8035,
8036, 8037, 8061, 8072, 8073, and 8074) exceeded the state AWQC for iron (1.0 mg/L). Lead concentrations
at seven stations (820, 822, 8035, 8036, 8061, 8072, and 8073) exceeded the state AWQC (0.00041 mg/L),
and the state AWQC for zinc (0.027 mg/L) was exceeded at stations 8035, 8036, 8037, and 8061.
Railway Ditch sediment concentrations of inorganics were compared to the upgradient station on Flagstone
Brook (8031). Inorganics concentrations in Railway Ditch sediments that were one order of magnitude
greater in concentration than those detected at station 8031 are described as follows.
Eight sediment inorganics were one order of magnitude greater in concentration than those detected at
station 8031. These included: arsenic at seven stations, iron at one station, lead at two stations,
calcium at three stations, cobalt at one station, potassium at one station, manganese at six stations,
and silicon at eight stations. Four inorganics (beryllium, selenium, silver, and thallium) detected in
Railway Ditch sediments were not detected at station 8031.
Potential pathways by which contaminants have entered Flagstone Brook and the Railway Ditch include
overland flow (erosion) and groundwater discharge. The PAHs and pesticides observed in sediments are
transported via erosion of LF-5 soils. VOCs detected in the Railway Ditch surface waters reflect
contaminated groundwater discharge. The relative absence of VOCs in Flagstone Brook surface waters may
result from dilution, losses due to volatilization, or a smaller contaminant load migrating westward, as
opposed to eastward toward the Railway Ditch.
Halogenated VOCs in Railway Ditch waters have been determined to have originated from three separate
source locations in the vicinity of LF-5; the central trench area (chlorobenzene, 1,4-DCB, and
C-1,2-DCE), the southern trench area (PCE), and an area south of the landfill near the PCDA.
Based on sampling results in Flagstone Brook and the Railway Ditch, it is estimated that approximately
3,000 yd[3] of Railway Ditch sediments will require remediation.
D.
Groundwater
During the LF-5 characterization, 38 groundwater sample locations were tested for VOCs with varied
frequency. Both aromatic and halogenated VOCs have been detected on- and off-site. However, the
off-site aromatic VOCs have been detected in wells 502 and 5008. Well 5008 is downgradient of both
LF-5 and the BFSA.
All of the groundwater samples collected from monitor wells installed within the established LF-5
boundary have contained VOCs. Outside the landfill boundary, halogenated VOCs were detected in samples
collected from five wells located east of the southern section of LF-5 (502, 538, 568, 626, and
6003); and one well located northeast of the landfill (5011). Figure 8 depicts the distribution of the
concentrations of total halogenated VOCs, total aromatic VOCs, and total SVOCs for each well.
The highest concentrations of total aromatic VOCs (primarily benzene, chlorobenzene, and 1,4-DCB) and
SVOCs are typically detected in groundwater collected from wells near the central trenches (567, 603,
604, 605, and 6005).
The highest concentrations of halogenated VOCs, primarily TCE and PCE, in groundwater are hydraulically
downgradient of the southeastern corner of LF-5, but low concentrations have been detected in samples
from one well, located adjacent to the central portion of the southern boundary, during three separate
sampling events. Low concentrations of dichlorinated alkenes and alkanes cis-1,2-DCE, 1,1-DCA, and
1,2-DCA are present across the landfill, but the higher concentrations (>5 ug/L) are restricted to the
southeastern region of LF-5. The highest detected concentrations of total SVOCs and total aromatic VOCs
have been in the central trench area (605 and 606); benzene has repeatedly exceeded the Federal Maximum
Contaminant Level (MCL) of 5 ug/L in samples collected from one well (5014) in this area. No
other final or proposed MCLs have been exceeded for aromatic VOCs or SVOCs at LF5. The MCLs for TCE (5
ug/L) and vinyl chloride (2 ug/L) have been exceeded in groundwater samples collected from well 502, and
the MCL for PCE (5 ug/L) has been exceeded in all samples from wells 502 and 538.
Groundwater samples collected from 38 wells in and around LF-5 have been analyzed for pesticides. Low
concentrations (below quantitation limits) of either delta-BHC, endosulfan I, or 4,4'-DDD have been
detected in groundwater samples collected from three of the wells (605, 606, and 629). The two samples
containing endosulfan I were collected from wells located downgradient of the central trench area (605
and 606). The concentrations present are not above any existing federal or state criteria. No
herbicides have been detected in groundwater samples collected from the wells in and around LF-5.
A total of 96 groundwater samples collected from 38 wells were analyzed for dissolved metals. Table 3
summarizes those wells at which dissolved metal concentrations have exceeded background. Iron and
manganese were consistently present at concentrations above established background concentrations near
the central trench area (wells 567, 604, 605, 606, 630, 6005, and 6006). In all wells in which dissolved
manganese concentrations exceeded the background concentrations, aromatic VOCs were detected. A similar
correlation exists with dissolved iron except in wells 508 and 5010, which do not contain VOCs. The
majority of the metals concentrations that were present in elevated concentrations were located in wells
near the central trenches.
Dissolved arsenic was detected above the background concentration (50 ug/L) in seven wells; six of these
wells are located near the central trenches (567, 605, 630, 6005, and 6006) and the seventh (501) is
located downgradient of the BFSA. Dissolved arsenic was detected at lower concentrations in wells that
are hydraulically upgradient of the trench area (502 and 505), and in well 629.
Contaminant migration in groundwater beneath and adjacent to LF-5 is discussed in detail in Subsections
5.2 and 5.3 of the Zone 1 Draft Final RI (F-500). The salient points of the discussion are presented in
the paragraphs that follow.
Six potential groundwater contaminant migration pathways exist at LF-5.
and bedrock groundwater pathways to the north, east, and west of LF-5.
The six pathways are overburden
The bedrock and overburden water-bearing zones within LF-5 are intimately interconnected hydraulically.
Excavating and landfilling activities resulted in removal of much of the relatively low-permeability
Marine Clay and Silt (MCS) and Glacial Till (GT) units, that, in many other areas, act as an aquitard
between the bedrock and overburden aquifers. Consequently, low permeability material, which would
otherwise separate groundwater in the overburden from groundwater in the weathered bedrock, is only
sporadically present throughout LF-5. The observed contaminant distributions within LF-5 are consistent
with the single hydraulic unit model.
Groundwater beneath LF-5 is recharged primarily from the south, although a local groundwater mound, which
acts as an enhanced recharge zone, has developed in the central trench area. The center of this recharge
zone is located north of well 604 (see Figure 8).
The location of this recharge zone coincides with an area characterized by elevated concentrations of
several aromatic and halogenated VOCs. A north/south-trending groundwater divide transects this recharge
zone along an axis through test pits 925, 927, and 928, and bedrock wells 604 and 605. Groundwater
(bedrock and overburden) flows radially away from the recharge area and then joins the dominant flow
pattern toward Flagstone Brook to the west and the Railway Ditch to the east.
Hydraulic gradients across LF-5 indicate that groundwater flows toward both the Railway Ditch and
Flagstone Brook, thereby resulting in discharge from the water table to surface water. Although the
Railway Ditch was not flowing during the September 1989 surface water sampling event, it appears to be a
perennial stream because flow has been noted during all previous and subsequent sampling rounds. Organic
contaminants present in surface water samples from staff gages along the Railway Ditch are the same as
found in groundwater at LF-5. Although groundwater is also discharging into Flagstone Brook, with the
exception of a small amount of PCE in one of four surface water samples collected at staff gage 821,
there is a relative absence of contaminants detected in surface water samples. The relative absence of
contaminants in Flagstone Brook may result from dilution, because of its relatively high discharge,
contaminant losses resulting from aeration and volatilization, and/or it may be a reflection of a
relatively smaller contaminant load migrating westward rather than eastward toward the Railway Ditch.
E.
Wetlands
In addition to the Railway Ditch and Flagstone Brook, several wetlands areas exist in the LF-5 vicinity.
On and immediately adjacent to the landfill are three wetlands: Wetlands XV, XVI, and XVII (see Figure
3). Wetlands XVI drains to Flagstone Brook and Wetlands XV and XVII drain the Railway Ditch. East of the
landfill, between the railroad and Merrimac Drive, are Wetlands I, II, III, IV, V, and VI. Wetlands I,
III, IV, and V drain toward Merrimac Drive, and Wetlands II and VI drain to the Railway Ditch. North of
the landfill, there are several wetlands associated with the Railway Ditch and
Flagstone Brook. Wetlands VII and VIII are associated with the Railway Ditch until it reaches Wetlands IX
and joins Flagstone Brook through a culvert under the railroad. Wetlands X is located north of LF-5 and
west of Flagstone Brook and has no identified surface water connection to Flagstone Brook. However,
subsurface flow may exist under the roadbed. West of the landfill, Wetlands XIII is immediately adjacent
to Flagstone Brook and a portion of it flows into Flagstone Brook near its conjunction with Merrimac
Drive. More detailed information pertaining to the wetlands in the LF-5 vicinity is presented in the
Wetlands Delineation Report in Appendix M of the LF-5 RI (F-500).
Based on wetland area surface soil and sediment sampling results that were available during preparation
of the FS, it was assumed that sediment in Wetlands VI and XV, located outside the northern boundary of
the landfill on either side of the Railway Ditch and south of Merrimac Drive, would require remediation.
The estimated volumes of sediment in Wetlands VI and XV that may require remediation are 4,200 yd[3] and
2,400 yd[3], respectively. However, it should be noted that these volumes were conservatively estimated
assuming that the entire wetlands will require sediment excavation. While sediment samples from the
portions of these wetlands immediately adjacent to the Railway Ditch contained contaminant concentrations
exceeding the No Observable Adverse Biological Effects Levels (ER-Ms), published by the National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) samples were not collected from these wetlands at locations farther
away from the Railway Ditch so there are no data to suggest that remediation of the entire wetlands is
necessary. Confirmational sampling has been conducted in these wetlands to confirm whether sediment
removal is necessary. Remedial volumes resulting from the sampling results will be confirmed prior to
implementation of remedial action. Excavation will be avoided, wherever possible, to avoid the adverse
long-term effects of wetlands destruction.
VI.
SUMMARY OF SITE RISKS
A Risk Assessment (RA) was performed to estimate the probability and magnitude of potential adverse human
health and environmental effects from exposure to contaminants associated with the Site. The public
health risk assessment followed a four-step process:
1.
Contaminant identification, which identified those hazardous substances which, given the specifics
of the site, were of significant concern.
2.
Exposure assessment, which identified actual or potential exposure pathways, characterized the
potentially exposed populations, and determined the extent of possible exposure.
3.
Toxicity assessment, which considered the types and magnitude of adverse health effects associated
with exposure to hazardous substances.
4.
Risk characterization, which integrated the three earlier steps to summarize the potential and
actual risks posed by carcinogenic risks.
The results of the baseline human health and ecological risk assessments for Pease AFB are discussed in
the subsections that follow.
A.
Human Health Risk Assessment
A total of 75 contaminants of concern, listed in Tables 4 through 12, were selected for evaluation in the
human health risk assessment. These contaminants constitute a representative subset of the more than 98
contaminants identified at the site during the RI. The 75 contaminants of concern were selected to
represent potential site-related hazards based on toxicity, concentration, frequency of detection,
mobility, and persistence in the environment. A summary of the health effects of each of the
contaminants of concern can be found in Subsection 6.3.2 and Appendix L.4 of the LF-5 Draft Final RI
(F500).
The potential human health effects associated with exposure to the contaminants of concern were estimated
quantitatively through the development of several hypothetical exposure pathways. These pathways were
developed to reflect the potential for exposure to hazardous substances based on the present uses,
potential future uses, and location of the site.
LF-5 is the largest of the landfills within Zone 1 and is located in the center of the zone. LF-5
currently is not used. The only site being used within Zone 1 is Site 13, the BFSA. It is assumed that
future land use within Zone 1 will be restricted to prohibit building construction on the landfills,
which includes LF-5. The areas within the zone that are currently or have previously been used for
industrial purposes are assumed to have an industrial future use potential. However, areas adjacent to
the landfills could be future residential areas, particularly in the northern, eastern, and western
portions of the zone.
Two surface water bodies, Flagstone Brook and the Railway Ditch, are associated with LF-5. These surface
waters may potentially be affected by site contaminants through groundwater discharge and overland flows.
Flagstone Brook and the Railway Ditch have no current uses. It is possible, however, that if residential
development were to occur in Zone 1 in the future, these surface waters could be used for recreational
activities (e.g., wading).
Groundwater is not currently used on or immediately downgradient of the site. However, it is possible
that in the future the groundwater may be used on the base for industrial purposes (i.e., drinking water,
showering, process water) or, if residences were to be built within Zone 1, for domestic use. As such,
human health risks due to exposure to groundwater at LF-5 were evaluated in the LF-5 RA included in the
LF-5 FS (F-494). While future groundwater use is evaluated in the RA, it is most likely that
current off-base public water supply sources would be used. Groundwater is currently used for domestic
purposes by local off-base residents. An extensive survey of private wells has given no indication that
groundwater contaminants associated with LF-5 have affected private wells.
The following is a brief summary of the exposure pathways evaluated. A more thorough description can be
found in Subsection 6.3.1 of the RA (Subsection 6.3.1 of the RI). Only source control remedial actions
are considered in this ROD. Groundwater remedial actions will be addressed in the Zone 1 FS, scheduled
for completion in September 1993.
Only one current exposure pathway was evaluated, based on current land use scenarios. The current
on-site maintenance worker was assumed to be exposed to contaminants via: 1) incidental soil ingestion,
and 2) dermal contact with soil. In each case, the exposure frequency was assumed to be 250 days/year
for a duration of 25 years. For ingestion, rates of 7.8 mg/day for the main landfill, 3.1 mg/day for the
drum removal area, and 1.6 mg/day for the staged underground storage tank (UST) area were assumed. The
drum removal area and staged UST area are locations on the landfill that were identified as hot spots and
were consequently evaluated separately in the RA because of the type and concentrations of contaminants
in these areas.
Future use exposure pathways evaluated were as follows:
•
Soil - Future maintenance worker (same exposure parameters as current maintenance worker).
•
Surface water - There are two potentially exposed populations:
•
•
Future Zone 1 resident - This scenario assumes exposure via dermal contact (wading) at a
rate of 1 hour/event at a frequency of 75 events per year for Flagstone Brook and 25
events/year for the Railway Ditch, all over a period of 30 years.
•
Future Zone 1 recreational user - This scenario assumes the same exposure rate, frequency,
and duration as the residential scenario.
Sediment - Again, both future residential and recreational users are evaluated. In each case, both
incidental ingestion and dermal contact were assumed to occur at a rate of 6.25 mg/day (both
Flagstone Brook and the Railway Ditch) at frequencies of 75 events/year and 25 events/year for
Flagstone Brook and the Railway Ditch, respectively. In each instance, an exposure duration of 30
years was assumed.
Summaries of exposure parameters for each pathway evaluated are presented in Table 13 (i.e., exposure
frequency, exposure duration, etc.). For each pathway evaluated, an average and a reasonable maximum
exposure estimate was generated corresponding to exposure to the average and the maximum concentration
detected in that particular medium.
Excess lifetime cancer risks were determined for each exposure pathway by multiplying the exposure level
with the chemical-specific cancer factor. Cancer potency factors have been developed by EPA from
epidemiological or animal studies to reflect a conservative "upper bound" of the risk posed by
potentially carcinogenic compounds; i.e., the true risk is unlikely to be greater than the risk
predicted. The resulting risk estimates are expressed in scientific notation as a probability (e.g., 1 x
10[-6] for 1/1,000,000) and indicate (using this example), that an average individual is not likely to
have greater than a one-in-one-million chance of developing cancer over 70 years as a result of
site-related exposure as defined for the compound at the stated concentration. Current EPA practice
considers carcinogenic risks to be additive when assessing exposure to a mixture of hazardous substances.
The hazard index was also calculated for each pathway as EPA's measure of the potential for
noncarcinogenic health effects. A hazard quotient is calculated by dividing the exposure level by the
reference dose (RfD) or other suitable benchmark for noncarcinogenic health effects for an individual
compound. Reference doses have been developed by EPA to protect sensitive individuals over the course of
a lifetime and they reflect a daily exposure level that is likely to be without an appreciable risk of an
adverse health effect. RfDs are derived from epidemiological or animal studies and incorporate
uncertainty factors to help ensure that adverse health effects will not occur. The hazard quotient is
often expressed as a single value (e.g., 0.3) indicating the ratio of the stated exposure as defined to
the reference dose value (in this example, the exposure as characterized is approximately one-third of an
acceptable exposure level for the given compound). The hazard quotient is only considered additive for
compounds that have the same or similar toxic endpoint and the sum is referred to as the hazard index
(HI). (For example, the hazard quotient for a compound known to produce liver damage should not be added
to a second whose toxic endpoint is kidney damage.)
Calculated risks for each individual chemical of concern for each exposure pathway evaluated are
presented in Appendix L.7 of the RA. A summary of additive chemical risks for each pathway evaluated is
presented in Table 14 of this ROD. The conclusions of the human health risk assessment are summarized in
the paragraphs that follow.
For the main landfill soils, the cancer risks ranged from 1 x 10[5] to 9 x 10[-4]. The chemicals
contributing most of the risk were PAHs (>10[-4]). Aroclor-1242, Aroclor-1248, dieldrin, and arsenic each
posed a risk of >10[-6]. The cancer risks posed by contact with hot spot soils was 5 x 10[7] for
the staged UST location and ranged from 1 x 10[-3] to 4 x 10[-3] for the drum removal area. PAHs
contributed most of the risk for the drum removal area (>10[-4]), followed by dieldrin (>10[-6]). There
was no apparent risk of noncancer health effects posed by contact with either main landfill or
hot spot soils. The hazard indices for soil were below 1 at all exposure concentrations.
Cancer risks based on future groundwater use ranged from 6 x 10[-6] to 3 x 10[-3] based on filtered
samples and 1 x 10[-3] to 7 x 10[-3] based on unfiltered (total) samples. Arsenic posed the highest risk
(>10[4]). Benzene, bis-(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate (DEHP), 1,4-dichlorobenzene, 1,2dichloroethane,
tetrachloroethene, and trichloroethene each posed greater than a 10[-6] risk. The total hazard indices
ranged from 30 to 100 based on filtered samples, and from 10 to 40 based on unfiltered samples. Arsenic
and thallium had hazard indices that exceeded 10; manganese had a hazard index that exceeded 1. Thallium
was detected in unfiltered samples only during one sampling round. The presence of thallium could not be
confirmed during subsequent sampling rounds.
The cancer risks posed by surface water contact were minimal, ranging from 9 x 10[-10] to 5 x 10[-8] for
Flagstone Brook, and from 1 x 10[-9] to 8 x 10[-8] for the Railway Ditch. The hazard indices for both
surface waters were below the criterion of 1.
The cancer risks posed by contact with sediment in Flagstone Brook were minimal, ranging from 2 x 10[-10]
to 3 x 10[-9]. The cancer risks posed by contact with sediment in the Railway Ditch ranged from 2 x
10[-7] to 4 x 10[-6]. Arsenic was the only chemical of concern that posed greater than a 10[-6] risk.
The hazard indices for sediment from both Flagstone Brook and the Railway Ditch were below the criterion
of 1.
B.
Ecological Risk Assessment
The objectives of the ecological risk assessment were to identify and estimate the potential
impacts associated with the chemicals of concern at LF-5, Pease AFB. The assessment focused
potential impacts f chemicals of concern found in the soil, surface waters, and sediments to
and aquatic flora and fauna that inhabit or are potential inhabitants of the site, including
Brook and the Railway Ditch.
ecological
on the
terrestrial
Flagstone
The species evaluated and their relevant exposure pathways are listed as follows:
White-Tailed Deer
•
•
•
Incidental ingestion of soil.
Ingestion of vegetation (browse).
Ingestion of surface water.
Shrew
•
•
Incidental ingestion of soil.
Ingestion of soil invertebrates (earthworms).
Robin
•
•
Ingestion of soil invertebrates (earthworms).
Ingestion of surface water.
Earthworm
•
Ingestion/absorption of soil.
Aquatic Biota
•
•
Direct contact with surface water.
Direct contact with sediments.
Terrestrial Plants
•
Direct contact with soil.
Although wildlife present at LF-5 may be exposed to chemicals of concern through the dermal absorption
and inhalation routes, there is little scientific information available with which to assess these types
of exposures; therefore, these routes of exposure were not evaluated in the RA. t was assumed that
exposure to terrestrial wildlife primarily occurs when he animals feed in those areas affected by site
contamination. For this assessment, avian and mammalian species with the greatest potential for
exposure were selected for evaluation of exposure. Species selected were representative of major
foraging guilds and trophic levels that are present LF-5. Although amphibians and reptiles are important
components of this ecosystem, sufficient exposure and toxicity data were not available for
their evaluation. However, a brief discussion of potential sensitivity of these phylogentic groups to
environmental perturbations were included in the uncertainty analysis. An ecological inventory of Pease
AFB by the New Hampshire Natural Heritage program did not identify any threatened, endangered, or species
of special concern at LF-5.
The aquatic life inhabiting Flagstone Brook and the Railway Ditch was described in Section 3 of the RI.
The transport and fate of chemicals migrating from the site via surface water runoff, groundwater
discharge, or ir transport of dust or vapors may potentially result in the exposure of flora and fauna
that inhabit these surface waters. NHDES has adopted many of the AWQC developed by EPA for the
protection of 95% of all aquatic life, including fish, aquatic invertebrates, and plants. Comparisons of
surface water concentrations with the New Hampshire AWQC for the protection of freshwater aquatic life
were used to assess the likelihood of adverse effects to aquatic life. Where AWQC were not available for
contaminants of concern, toxicity values were developed from toxicological data in the literature. Where
possible, the lowest observed effect level (LOEL) for a species similar to those reported in Flagstone
Brook or the Railway Ditch as used.
During the FS, in order to assess potential adverse effects to aquatic life rom exposure to sediments,
chemicals of concern identified in the sediments f Flagstone Brook and the Railway Ditch were compared
with biological effect levels developed by NOAA. The biological effect level used in this assessment was
an environmental Effect Range-Low (ER-L) value, which is a concentration that is the lower tenth
percentile of a range of sediment concentrations in which biological effects have been observed.
Whenever an ER-L was not available for an organic nonpolar chemical, interstitial water concentrations
were estimated using the equilibrium partitioning (EP) approach and compared to AWQC or toxicity data.
Since completion of the LF-5 Draft Final FS (F-494), it has been determined via review of RA protocols,
review of characterization study results for Pease AFB, RI/FS experience at other sites, and discussions
with EPA Region I representatives that ER-Ls are unrealistically conservative. Consequently
a revised approach to selecting cleanup goals for organic compounds in sediments was instituted at Pease.
Rather than using ER-Ls as cleanup goals for organics in sediments, the EP method was used to calculate
sediment cleanup goals. Under this method the cleanup goal for a specific organic compound in sediment
would be set at that compound concentration in sediment which would not partition to the pore water at a
concentration exceeding an established AWQC or other toxicity value. Cleanup goals established for
organic contaminants in sediments, as presented in this ROD, may be revised prior to remediation. Cleanup
goals for metals in sediments will continue to be ER-Ls.
In addition to the comparisons just described, a qualitative evaluation of the benthic community sampling
results was presented in Subsection 3.5.3 of the RI and will be summarized in the paragraphs that follow.
The distribution and composition of vegetative communities observed at LF-5 were described in Subsection
3.5.1 of the RI. A direct comparison of soil concentrations with available phytotoxicity data was used
to qualitatively assess potential adverse effects on vegetation.
There is currently no EPA guidance for quantitatively evaluating potential adverse effects to plants
growing in contaminated soils. Based on a visual inspection of plants grown at LF-5, no signs of
phytotoxic effects (i.e., necrosis, chlorosis, or stunted growth) were observed. New Hampshire and
EPA AWQC provide protection for 95% of all aquatic life, including plants. Therefore, potential toxicity
to aquatic plants was not evaluated separately, but was taken into account in the comparison of surface
water concentrations to the New Hampshire and EPA AWQC. In the case of rooted or emergent aquatic
plants, sufficient toxicity data were not available, and therefore, rooted and emergent aquatic plants
were not evaluated in the RA.
The results of the environmental evaluation indicate chemicals of concern identified in the surface
soils, surface waters, and sediments at LF-5 may adversely affect selected target species and aquatic
life. In general, the chemicals of concern, by medium, that contributed most to the total hazard indices
were as follows:
•
Soil - Pesticides, benzo(a)pyrene, lead, and zinc.
•
Surface waters - Aluminum, copper, iron, lead, zinc, and DDT.
•
Sediments - Arsenic, DDT, DDD, DDE, alpha-chlordane, gamma-chlordane, and lead.
Total hazard indices, for target species, based on average and maximum exposure concentrations ranged
from 2.76 (deer; hot spot) for average exposure concentrations to 2.86 x 10[4] (masked shrew; hot spot)
for maximum exposure concentrations. The hazard indices for LF-5 surface water evaluations, average and
maximum concentrations, ranged from 1.47 (Flagstone Brook; acute criteria) to 2,810 (Railway Ditch;
chronic criteria), respectively. The hazard indices calculated for the LF-5 sediment evaluation ranged
from 77.4 (Flagstone Brook; average concentration) to 12,800 (Railway Ditch maximum concentration).
Macrobenthos population analyses were also conducted in Flagstone Brook and the Railway Ditch to provide
information in support of the ecological risk assessment for LF-5. Results of the community analyses are
discussed in the paragraphs that follow. A total of 1,626 benthic macroinvertebrates representing 47
taxa were collected in 20 samples from in and adjacent to Flagstone Brook stations 8031, 821, 819, and
818. Information on taxa and pollution tolerance values were used to calculate biotic indices for each
of the taxa encountered.
The one-way analysis of variance (ANOVA) statistical method was performed on the data set to determine
whether a significant difference in the total number of organisms and total number of taxa existed
between sampling stations. The data show a downstream increase in the total number of taxa while the
total number of individuals exhibits no significant increase.
Index values were computed for each sample data set from Flagstone Brook. A general trend was observed
in the biotic index for Flagstone Brook. At station 8031, the biotic index of 3.1 is indicative of fair
water quality. The next station downstream, station 821, had the highest biotic index value (3.8), which
is indicative of poor water quality, while biotic index values at stations 819 (3.2) and 818 (2.7)
exhibited an improvement in water quality downstream of LF-5. The lowest biotic index value was observed
at station 818, which is indicative of good water quality. This corroborates the diversity, evenness,
and community similarity data that indicate a downstream improvement in water quality below LF-5.
For the Railway Ditch, a total of 218 benthic macroinvertebrates representing 22 taxa were collected from
three stations (826, 826, and 828). Stations 827 and 828 were located in the Railway Ditch, and station
826 was located as a control point west of Flagstone Brook. Station 826 was located in a stream similar
in size and characteristics to the Railway Ditch stations for use as a control or reference station to
compare surface water, sediment, and macrobenthos data. The control station (826) had the most taxa (13)
and the largest number of individuals (190) of the three stations sampled. Stations located downstream
of LF-5 exhibited a decrease in the total number of taxa in comparison to station 826. Additionally,
downstream stations had lower total numbers of individuals in comparison to station 826.
A one-way ANOVA was performed on the quantitative data set to determine whether a significant difference
in total number of individuals and total number of taxa existed between each sampling station. The
results of this statistical analysis indicated that station 826 (control) had significantly more
organisms and taxa than either of the two stations located in the Railway Ditch (827 and 828). There were
no statistical differences between the two downstream stations with respect to either the number of
organisms or the number of taxa.
Station 826, the control station, had a biotic index value of 3.4, which is indicative of fair to poor
water quality, while stations 827 and 828 had index values indicative of good water quality. The two
downstream stations had similar biotic index values, diversities, and species composition and are
different from the community at station 826.
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 public
health, welfare, or the environment. However, remediation of LF-5 soils and sediments under the ROD will
serve to eliminate LF-5 as a source of contamination, thereby reducing the threat of endangerment.
Additionally, Zone 1 groundwater remediation, which is to be addressed in the Zone 1 Draft Final FS
(completed in August 1993) will reduce contaminant mobility such that future human health and ecological
risk via exposure to groundwater and surface water at and around LF-5 will be reduced to acceptable
levels.
VII.
A.
DEVELOPMENT AND SCREENING OF ALTERNATIVES
Statutory Requirements/Response Objectives
Section 121 of CERCLA establishes several statutory requirements and preferences, including: remedial
actions must be protective of human health and the environment; remedial actions, when complete, must
comply with all federal and more stringent state environmental standards, requirements, criteria, or
limitations, unless a waiver is invoked; the remedial action selected must be cost-effective and utilize
permanent solutions and alternative treatment technologies or resource recovery technologies to the
maximum extent practicable; and a preference for remedies in which treatment that permanently and
significantly reduces the volume, toxicity, or mobility of the hazardous substances is a principal
element over remedies not involving such treatment. Response alternatives were developed to be consistent
with these mandates.
Based on preliminary 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 alternatives.
These RAOs were developed to mitigate existing and future potential threats to public health and the
environment via source control. These response objectives for sediment were:
•
To protect ecological receptors from direct contact with, or ingestion of, sediment containing
contaminants in excess of concentrations that may present a health risk (total hazard index
greater than 1).
•
To protect human receptors from direct contact with, or ingestion of, sediment containing
contaminants in excess of concentrations that may present a health risk (total cancer risk greater
than 10[-4] and a total hazard index greater than 1).
Because contaminants in sediment in Flagstone Brook may be originating from upgradient locations,
including the North Ramp, remediation of Flagstone Brook sediments will not be addressed in this ROD, but
will be addressed in the Zone 1 ROD, as appropriate.
The response objectives for landfill soil and solid wastes were the following:
To protect humans from direct contact with, or ingestion of, contaminated soils or debris that may
present a health risk (total cancer risk greater than 10[-4] or a total hazard index greater than 1).
•
To protect ecological receptors from direct contact with, or ingestion of, soil or debris
containing contaminants in excess of concentrations that may present health risks (total hazard
index greater than 1).
•
To reduce the migration of contaminants from soil or debris into the groundwater, which may
inhibit attainment of the groundwater RAOs for Zone 1.
•
To reduce the migration of contaminants from soil or debris into surface water, which may inhibit
attainment of the surface water RAOs for Zone 1.
The source control response objective for groundwater and surface water was the following:
To reduce the migration of contaminants from sediments and landfill soil and solid wastes within
the LF-5 source area, which may inhibit attainment of the groundwater and surface water remedial
objectives for Zone 1.
•
The remedial response objectives for mitigation of contaminant migration will be addressed in the Zone 1
FS and its subsequent ROD.
B.
Technology and Alternative Development and Screening
CERCLA and the National Contingency Plan (NCP) set forth the process by which remedial actions are
evaluated and selected. In accordance with these requirements, a range of alternatives was developed for
LF-5.
With respect to source control, the RI/FS developed a range of alternatives in which treatment that
reduces the toxicity, mobility, or volume (TMV) of the hazardous substances is a principal element. This
range included an alternative that removes or destroys hazardous substances to the maximum extent
feasible, eliminating or minimizing to the degree possible the need for long-term management. This range
also included alternatives that treat the principal threats posed by the site but vary in the degree of
treatment employed and the quantities and characteristics of the treatment residuals and untreated waste
that must be managed; alternatives that involve little or no treatment but provide protection through
engineering or institutional controls; and a no action alternative.
VIII.
DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES
The information presented in the LF-5 Draft Final RI was used to prepare an FS. The FS provides a
screening of 13 source control remedial alternatives. Five alternatives passed through the screening
process and were retained for detailed evaluation.
This section provides a narrative summary of each alternative evaluated.
of each alternative can be found in Table 5.3-1 the FS.
A detailed tabular assessment
A.
Source Control Alternatives Analyzed
The source control alternatives analyzed for the site include:
•
Alternative SC-1:
CERCLA). P10O
No Action/Institutional Controls (considered as a baseline requirement by
•
Alternative SC-2A: Sediment and Landfill Consolidation, Landfill Capping, and Potential On-site
Construction Dewatering, Treatment, and Disposal.
•
Alternative SC-3A: Sediment Consolidation, Landfill Capping, and On-site Landfill Waste
Dewatering, Treatment, and Disposal.
•
Alternative SC-4D: Sediment and Landfill Consolidation, Hot Spot Thermal Treatment On-site,
Landfill Capping, and Potential On-site Construction Dewatering, Treatment, and Disposal.
•
Alternative SC-5A: Sediment and Landfill Waste On-site RCRA Landfilling and Potential On-site
Construction Dewatering, Treatment, and Disposal.
Alternative SC-1 - No Action/Institutional Controls
This alternative was evaluated in detail in the FS to serve as a baseline for comparison with the other
remedial alternatives under consideration. Under this alternative, no treatment or containment of
disposal areas would occur. This alternative does include fencing and deed restrictions for the
property, and also includes a long-term monitoring program. This alternative would not meet the source
control remedial objectives for the site.
Estimated
Estimated
Estimated
Estimated
Estimated
time for design and construction: 2 months
period for operation: 30 years
capital cost: $174,400
operation and maintenance cost (net present worth): $2,948,315
total cost (net present worth): $3,123,000
Alternative SC-2A - Sediment and Landfill Consolidation, Landfill Capping, and On-site Groundwater
Treatment and Disposal for Construction Dewatering
This alternative involves excavation and consolidation of: 1) sediments containing contaminants at
levels in excess of established treatment goals, and 2) landfill debris and contaminated soils that would
otherwise remain in contact with groundwater after landfill capping. During excavation, air emissions
would be controlled with synthetic covers, such as geomembranes. Also during construction, the excavation
would be dewatered via a system of advancing well points. Extracted groundwater would be treated in an
on-site mobile unit to meet site-specific groundwater treatment goals (either risk-based, or based on
federal/state groundwater MCLs). These goals will be met via multimedia filtration, ion exchange, and
activated carbon adsorption. Treated water would be discharged to the local POTW via existing sewer
lines. Therefore, treated water would meet Federal Clean Water Act (CWA, 40 CFR 403) pretreatment
standards for discharge to a POTW. In addition, the treated water would meet New Hampshire pretreatment
standards, per Env-Ws 900, Part 904.07, as well as requirements imposed by the local POTW. Following
consolidation, the landfill would be capped with a composite-barrier-type cap. A security fence and deed
restrictions would be used to prevent unauthorized access and future activities that could compromise the
composite-barrier cap integrity.
Based on the MODFLOW model, approximately 53,500 yd[3] of saturated landfill material would require
consolidation. The total excavated volume is estimated at 145,500 yd[3]. Additionally, sampling results
suggest that a total sediment volume of 9,600 yd[3] would require consolidation. The additional
LF-2/LF-4 debris, which will also be consolidated on LF-5 (see Sections IV and XII), would increase the
total excavated volume by approximately 76,320 yd[3]. This is an increase of greater than 100% in volume.
However, when this volume is partially used to fill the excavation at LF-5, and partially spread over an
area of 28 acres on top of LF-5, cap design and final grading are unaffected. Additional volumes from
LF-2/LF-4 and additional costs (if any) associated with placement of LF-2/LF-4 soils and debris on LF-5
are discussed in the Proposed Plan for LF-2/LF-4 completed in July 1993.
Risks posed by exposure to contaminated sediments, soils, and debris would be eliminated as soon as the
cap is in place. This would also minimize the potential for LF-5 to act as a source of surface water and
groundwater contamination by reducing the mobility of contaminants in the landfill materials and
sediments. All soil, sediment, and air applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements (ARARs) would
be met.
Treatment residuals, including concentrated salt solution and iron sludge, would be disposed of off-site.
Spent activated carbon would be transported off-site for regeneration or disposal.
For implementation of Alternative SC-2A, acquisition of approvals from and coordination with the New
Hampshire Wetlands Board and NHDES would be required. Quarterly air monitoring and bi-annual groundwater
modeling would be required. Per CERCLA guidance, the monitoring is estimated to continue for a period of
30 years (for costing purposes), with the understanding that continued monitoring or other remedial
actions subsequent to the 30-year period, are the responsibility of the Air Force. Five-year reviews to
assess performance of the containment system would also be needed.
Estimated
Estimated
Estimated
Estimated
Estimated
time for design and construction: 1 year
time of operation: 30 years
capital cost: $17,362,700
operation and maintenance cost (net present worth): $6,629,721
total cost (net present worth): $23,992,000
Alternative SC-3A - Excavation and Consolidation of Sediments on Landfill, Landfill Capping, and On-site
Landfill Waste Dewatering, Treatment, and Disposal
Under Alternative SC-3A, excavation and placement of an estimated 9,600 yd[3] of contaminated sediments
and regrading and capping the existing landfill would occur as described for Alternative SC-2A. No
landfill excavation would be performed; however, landfill debris would be dewatered. Dewatering would
occur such that-the post-capping water table would be lowered to a level 2 feet below the debris. This
difference would minimize some of the short-term impacts associated with landfill excavation; however,
it would require long-term groundwater extraction and possibly treatment in order to keep the waste
dewatered. The dewatering strategy is based on water-table elevations predicted by the MODFLOW model.
The dewatering system would consist of six extraction wells and a collection trench. The combined
groundwater extraction rate for the six wells is expected to average 45 gallons per minute (gpm). The
bottom of the collection trench would be set at 80 feet above mean sea level (MSL).
The extracted groundwater would be treated via lime precipitation and carbon adsorption. Flow rates to
the treatment system would average 45 gpm, with a maximum anticipated flow rate of 60 gpm. The treatment
system would be enclosed to prevent freezing during winter months. Treated effluent would be discharged
to the local POTW, as specified for Alternative SC-2A.
Residuals generated from the groundwater treatment system include spent carbon (it is anticipated that
two 2,200-pound units would be employed in series), and approximately 11.25 tons per year of
hydroxide/carbonate sludge. Treatability studies would be required for verification of these residuals
amounts. It is anticipated that the sludge will pass the Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure
(TCLP) tests; however, dewatered sludge would have to be analyzed to verify this, in accordance with the
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA). Sludge would be disposed of off-site in accordance with
state and federal regulations. Spent carbon would be regenerated off-site.
Treated water would meet the standards for discharge to the local POTW, as described for Alternative
SC-2A. Long-term monitoring of on-site groundwater would continue for an estimated 30 years, as for
Alternative SC-2A, with the same provisions for extended monitoring or remedial actions, as necessary.
As with Alternative SC-2A, institutional controls such as fencing and deed restrictions, would be
necessary. Monitoring of groundwater levels within the landfill would be required to ensure that the
dewatering system was maintaining water levels beneath the waste material.
Estimated
Estimated
Estimated
Estimated
Estimated
time for design and construction: 1 year
period for operation: 30 years
capital cost: $13,084,000
operation and maintenance cost (net present worth): $10,916,337
total cost (net present worth): $24,000,000
Alternative SC-4D - Sediment and Landfill Consolidation, Hot Spot Thermal Treatment On-site, Landfill
Capping, and Potential On-site Construction Dewatering, Treatment, and Disposal
Under this alternative, excavation and consolidation of sediments and landfill debris predicted to be
below the water table would be conducted in the same manner as for Alternative SC-2A. The volumes of
sediment and landfill material excavated and consolidated would be 9,600 yd[3] and 53,500 yd[3],
respectively. Details on consolidating, regrading, and capping of the existing landfill as well as
environmental monitoring and placement of institutional controls would be the same as for Alternative
SC-2A. Groundwater collected during construction dewatering would be treated and discharged to the local
POTW as with Alternative SC-2A. The same type and amount of treatment residuals would be produced and
these would be disposed of off-site as described for Alternative SC-2A. Treatment goals and ARARs are
expected to be met as with Alternative SC-2A, and the same long-term monitoring requirements as for
Alternative SC-2A are anticipated.
The only significant difference in the activities posed in Alternative SC-4D versus Alternative SC-2A is
the thermal treatment of hot spot soils and the placement of treated residuals back into the landfill.
The hot spot soils to be treated include several areas in the drum disposal area which, after drum and
tank removal operations, were found to contain high concentrations of contaminants of concern, most
notably PAHs. Thermal treatment has been proposed for these soils to reduce the overall toxicities and
quantities of LF-5 contaminants.
For treatment, the Low Temperature Thermal Treatment system (LT[3]) or its equivalent would be used. As
part of the LT[3] process, during soil excavation, field screening would be conducted to determine
whether elevated PAH levels remain. Additionally, periodic TCLP analyses of the contaminated soil would
be performed to ensure that RCRA LDRs would be met. It is possible that by the time remediation is
initiated, the final rule for contaminated soils will become final. In this instance, thermal treatment
would be the only LDR compliance necessary. Otherwise, a treatability variance from EPA may be required
such that existing LDR treatment standards can be satisfied. Currently, treatment goals are based on
current hot spot data and a projected removal efficiency of 95% for the LT[3] system. Treatability
studies may be required if a more accurate removal efficiency is required. If LF-5 receives a CAMU
designation (see Sections IV, IX, and X), LDRs would not apply to this alternative.
Air monitoring would be required throughout hot spot soils excavation and treatment activities, as would
institutional controls for minimization of short-term human health risks posed during excavation.
Following treatment, TCLP soil analyses would be conducted on the residuals to ensure that metals have
not been concentrated or their solubilities changed such that TCLP criteria are exceeded. If TCLP
criteria are exceeded, pozzalonic stabilization of residuals will be performed prior to landfilling in
order to reduce contaminant leachability (mobility).
Estimated
Estimated
Estimated
Estimated
Estimated
time for design and construction: 2 years
period for operation: 30 years
capital cost: $23,526,400
operation and maintenance cost (net present worth): $6,605,687
total cost (net present worth): $30,132,000
Alternative SC-5A - Sediment and Landfill Waste On-site RCRA Landfilling and Potential On-site
Construction Dewatering and Disposal
In this alternative, all of the landfilled solid waste would be excavated and placed into a secure RCRA
Subtitle C landfill on-site. Sediment excavation activities, on-site treatment of groundwater for
construction dewatering, and environmental monitoring would be performed as described for Alternative
SC-2A.
The facility would be designed to hold, at a minimum, the 251,000 yd[3] of solid waste estimated to be
landfilled. In addition, the facility should have the capacity to hold an estimated 70,000 yd[3] of soil
from below the existing waste deposits, and an estimated 19,000 yd[3] of thickened sediments, plus an
allowance of 17,000 yd[3] for intermediate cover soil. The new landfill would be constructed to RCRA
Subtitle C standards. It would have a double-composite bottom liner system, providing for leachate
collection and leak detection. A perimeter containment berm, constructed of selected earthen materials,
would define the lateral limits of the lined facility. On completion of filling, the landfill would be
capped with a multilayered composite final cover system, such as that described for Alternative SC-2A.
The maximum elevation of the new landfill would be 140 (+-) feet MSL, based on a contained volume of
about 390,000 yd[3] (including 150,000 yd[3] of excavated material). This elevation would be
approximately 40 feet above the maximum elevation of the present site. To achieve that height, the sides
of the landfill would rise at a slope not exceeding 3:1 (horizontal:vertical) to about elevation 130.
Above elevation 130, top slopes would be at a minimum of 20:1 (5%). Construction of the RCRA Subtitle C
landfill, including dewatering, excavation, stockpiling filling, grading, liner and leachate collection
systems, waste placement and compaction, and composite cap construction, would be expected to require
approximately 2 years.
Leachate generated from the landfill would be collected in a wet well and would be pumped into an
aboveground storage system. Off-site treatment and disposal of leachate will be performed, as required.
Eventually the leachate could be processed through a groundwater treatment plant constructed on the base.
Leachate generation has been estimated at between 1,400 and 2,100gallons per day (gpd) based on a
preliminary evaluation of the proposed landfill conditions. It has been assumed that the leachate would
be treated off-base for the first 5 years of operation and at a plant
constructed on the base after that time.
Similar to Alternatives SC-2A and SC-4D, groundwater extracted during construction dewatering would be
treated on-site with a mobile treatment plant. In this alternative, the mass of contaminants treated
would be greater than for Alternatives SC-2A and SC-4D since more extensive dewatering would be
conducted. Ion-exchange salt solution and iron sludge from the mobile treatment plant would be disposed
of off-site. Activated carbon used in the groundwater treatment plant (GWTP) would be transported
off-site for regeneration. No residuals associated with soil handling and capping activities are
expected to be produced. It was assumed that 0.5% of the landfill material would require off-site
treatment to comply with ARARs; all other waste materials would be incorporated into the RCRA Subtitle C
landfill.
Risks to human and ecological receptors via exposure to the waste materials, sediment, and surface soils
would be minimized under this alternative. Containment of waste materials in the lined facility and
collection of leachate for off-site treatment would eliminate potential contributions to groundwater that
would exist for all other alternatives. This alternative may help achieve groundwater ARARs more quickly
than Alternatives SC-1, SC-2A, SC3A, and SC-4D because of the complete isolation of source contaminants
and a reduction in the volume of contaminated groundwater present at the site that would be effected
during construction dewatering activities.
As in the previous capping alternatives (SC-2A, SC-3A, and SC-4D), indirect treatment of the landfilled
material would occur through natural biotransformation and desorption processes within the landfill.
These processes may reduce the toxicity of the waste materials. In contrast to the previous capping
alternatives, however, contaminants leached from soil and debris by water infiltrating the cap would be
collected and treated off-site, thereby reducing the TMV of contaminated leachate.
Predicted air emissions from the landfill are expected to be less than EPA's proposed action level of 150
mg/year (above which active control of emissions is required), but air monitoring would be conducted to
ensure compliance with federal and state requirements for hazardous and toxic air pollutants.
Monitoring of the volume of leachate generated from the bottom collection system of the landfill would
evaluate the effectiveness of the inner geomembrane liner. Groundwater quality monitoring around the
landfill for conventional leachate parameters would be used to evaluate the entire landfill's containment
effectiveness. Periodic sampling and analysis of groundwater around LF-5 for conventional leachate
parameters would be conducted as part of the long-term groundwater monitoring program. This program
would evaluate the effectiveness of the RCRA cell in containing site contaminants.
Coordination and consultation with NHDES would be required for this alternative. Acceptance by the Waste
Management Division would be expected. Coordination and consultation with the New Hampshire Wetlands
Board would be expected because of activities in and around wetland areas. It is also expected that
consultation with the Water Supply and Pollution Control Division of NHDES would be required concerning
the effluent discharge from the GWTP. Consultation and coordination with the Air Resources Division of
NHDES may also be required because of potential odor and particulate emissions from the excavation areas
and stockpiled waste materials.
Estimated
Estimated
Estimated
Estimated
Estimated
IX.
time for design and construction: 2 years
period for operation: 30 years
capital cost: $28,813,600
operation and maintenance cost (net present worth): $11,461,724
total cost (net present worth): $40,275,000
SUMMARY OF THE COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES
Section 121(b)(1) of CERCLA presents several factors that must be considered when assessing alternatives.
Building on these specific statutory mandates, the NCP articulates nine evaluation criteria to be used in
assessing the individual remedial alternatives.
A detailed analysis was performed on the alternatives using the nine evaluation criteria in order to
select a site remedy. The following is a summary of the comparison of each alternative's strengths and
weaknesses with respect to the nine evaluation criteria. These criteria are summarized as follows:
Threshold Criteria
The two threshold criteria described must be met in order for the alternatives to be eligible for
selection in accordance with the NCP.
1.
Overall protection of human health and the environment addresses whether or not a remedy provides
adequate protection and describes how risks posed through each pathway are eliminated, reduced, or
controlled through treatment, engineering controls, or institutional controls.
2.
Compliance with ARARS addresses whether or not a remedy will meet all of the ARARs of other
federal and state environmental laws and/or provide grounds for invoking a waiver.
Primary Balancing Criteria
The following five criteria are utilized to compare and evaluate the elements of one alternative to
another that meet the threshold criteria.
3.
Long-term effectiveness and permanence address the criteria that are utilized to assess
alternatives for the long-term effectiveness and permanence they afford, along with the degree of
certainty that they will prove successful.
4.
Reduction of toxicity, mobility, or volume through treatment addresses the degree to which
alternatives employ recycling or treatment that reduces toxicity, mobility, or volume, including
how treatment is used to address the principal threats posed by the site.
5.
Short-term effectiveness addresses the period of time needed to achieve protection and any adverse
impacts on human health and the environment that may be posed during the construction and
implementation period, until cleanup goals are achieved.
6.
Implementability addresses the technical and administrative feasibility of a remedy, including the
availability of materials and services needed to implement a particular option.
7.
Cost includes estimated capital and operation and maintenance (O&M) costs, as well as
present-worth costs.
Modifying Criteria
The modifying criteria are used on the final evaluation of remedial alternatives generally after public
comments on the RI/FS and Proposed Plan are received.
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/FS report. Community acceptance of both the original and the revised Proposed
Plans for LF-5 was evaluated based on written comments and verbal comments received in public
meetings during the public comment period.
Detailed tabular assessments of each alternative according to the threshold and balancing criteria can be
found in Tables 5.2-1 through 5.2-6 of the FS.
Following the detailed analysis of each individual alternative, a comparative analysis, focusing on the
relative performance of each analysis against the threshold and balancing criteria, was conducted. This
comparative analysis can be found in Table 15.
The following subsection presents the nine criteria, including the two modifying criteria not discussed
in the FS, a brief narrative summary of the alternatives and the strengths and weaknesses according to
the detailed and comparative analysis.
A.
Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment
In the long term, Alternative SC-1 would minimize the exposure of humans and large animals to landfill
soil, solid wastes, and surrounding sediment by restricting site access and development. However, site
worker and small animal exposure would not be mitigated. In addition, contaminant leaching to
groundwater would continue, thereby, allowing human exposure via potential groundwater use as well as
through recreational uses of drainage channels to which a portion of groundwater and overland flows
discharge. The continued leaching of contaminants would also affect wetlands habitats at LF5.
Alternatives SC-2A, SC-3A, SC-4D, and SC-5A would achieve overall protection of human and ecological
receptors from contaminated soils and sediments. These four alternatives would also contribute to
attainment of overall Zone 1 groundwater and surface water objectives. For each of the four
alternatives, protection of human and ecological receptors from surface water contaminants is expected
over the long term, due to elimination of leachate and contaminated sediments as sources. Alternative
SC-5A would further reduce the potential for contaminant migration to groundwater and surface water over
that of the other alternatives by encasing all landfill wastes in a RCRA cell. Over the short term,
groundwater use restrictions would be necessary to mitigate risks associated with groundwater use in the
early stages of remediation.
B.
Compliance with ARARs
Complete ARAR compliance would not be attained for Alternative SC-1 due to the lack of remediation
planned for that alternative. Of the three types of ARARs (location-specific, action-specific, and
contaminant-specific), location-specific ARARs are the only ARARs for which compliance would be attained.
Alternatives SC-2A, SC-3A, SC-4D, and SC-5A would all be expected to achieve compliance with locationand action-specific ARARs. For contaminant-specific ARARs, all four alternatives would meet soil,
sediment, and air ARARs.
C.
Long-Term Effectiveness and Permanence
The deed restrictions and site access restrictions in Alternative SC-1 would reduce, but would not
prevent, human contact with contaminated soils, sediments, surface water, and groundwater. Exposures to
ecological receptors would not be mitigated. In addition, no reduction in contaminant TMV would be
achieved. Therefore, continued human and ecological receptor exposure is expected over the long term.
For Alternatives SC-2A, SC-3A, SC-4D, and SC-5A, significant risk reduction is achieved by eliminating
dermal and ingestion exposure routes (both human and ecological receptors) to contamination in site soils
and sediments from LF-2, LF-4, and LF-5. For all four alternatives, it is expected that long-term
reliability would be enhanced via periodic inspections, and management and monitoring for a period of 30
years (this time-frame is typically chosen for costing purposes). For Alternative SC-3A, it is assumed
that groundwater would require treatment for a period of 30 years to maintain long-term effectiveness.
Additionally, pursuant to the requirements of CERCLA 120(h)(3)(B)(ii), should any additional remedial
actions be required (including continued monitoring) either during or subsequent to the 30-year time
period, the Air Force will be responsible for implementation of these actions, regardless of when the
need arises. This ensured the long-term effectiveness of Alternatives SC-2A, SC-3A, SC-4D, and SC-5A
subsequent to the 30-year monitoring and treatment periods described.
There exists a potential for future receptor exposures to site contaminants due to failure of the
containment strategy-cap failure for Alternatives SC-2A, SC-3A, SC-4D, and SC-5A. Each source control
alternative would contribute to attainment of overall Zone 1 objectives for groundwater and
surface water.
D.
Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility, or Volume Through Treatment
Alternatives SC-1 would not reduce the TMV of contaminants through treatment because the alternative does
not provide for treatment.
Each of the remaining alternatives, Alternatives SC-2A, SC-3A, SC4D, and SC-5A would provide for some
degree of reduction in TMV, but would not significantly reduce TMV as a principal element of the remedy.
All four alternatives would reduce TMV for groundwater currently in contact with solid waste. This would
serve to reduce the mobility of soil contaminants in LF-2, LF-4, and LF-5. In the case of Alternative
SC-5A, which provides for on-site RCRA landfilling of contaminated soils and sediments, reduction in the
mobility of soil contaminants would be significantly increased over the other three alternatives. For
Alternative SC-4D, reduction of the TMV of hot spot soils via thermal treatment (LT[3]) would be
achieved.
All four alternatives (SC-2A, SC-3A, SC-4D, and SC-5A) involve onsite groundwater treatment, which
constitutes irreversible treatment. All four alternatives will produce groundwater treatment residuals
(either concentrated ion salt solution, iron sludge and spent carbon, or carbonate and metal hydroxide
sludge and spent carbon). In each case, off-site disposal/regeneration is expected. Thermal treatment
residuals (Alternative SC-4D) would be tested for TCLP criteria and to determine the percent contaminant
destruction achieved prior to placement back in the excavation.
E.
Short-Term Effectiveness
Implementation of Alternative SC-1 would not be expected to have significant impacts on the community.
In addition, impacts to workers would not be expected, and use of personal protective equipment (PPE)
would minimize potential impacts during fence and wall installation and water sampling activities. Minor
environmental impacts would be possible during implementation, and would be mitigated via use of erosion
control measures. The total time for implementation of Alternative SC-1 is estimated to be 2 months.
Each of the four remaining alternatives (SC-2A, SC-3A, SC-4D, and SC-5A) would result in potential
community and worker exposure to emissions generated during remedial activities (landfill excavation Alternatives SC-2A, SC4D, SC-5A; thermal treatment - Alternative SC-4D; groundwater treatment Alternative
SC-3A). These impacts would be minimized using engineering controls and site-specific health and safety
procedures. Sediment excavation and landfill dewatering during implementation of Alternatives SC-2A,
SC-4D, and SC-5D could impact wetlands environments at LF-5. Long-term groundwater extraction during
implementation of Alternative SC-3A could result in even greater impacts. Landfill capping could compound
the effect by reducing groundwater recharge in the area (Alternatives SC-2A, SC-3A, and SC-4D).
Installation of a RCRA landfill (Alternative SC-5A) could further exacerbate the problem. In all cases,
wetlands mitigation may be performed as part of remedial activities.
F.
Implementability
Alternative SC-1, with its minimal construction activities, is easily constructed and is not hindered by
site conditions. Monitoring and maintenance activities would be easily performed. Composite barrier cap
construction, as planned for Alternatives SC-2A, SC-3A, and SC-4D, is a proven and well-known technology.
Site conditions are not expected to inhibit construction. Composite-barrier caps are considered reliable
engineering controls. Cap construction would have to be limited to warmer months, and modeling would be
required to better predict the post-capping water table elevation. More comprehensive modeling and
pilot-scale treatability studies would likely be required for Alternative SC-3A due to the expected
long-term groundwater pumping and on-site treatment planned. Thermal treatment (Alternative SC4D) is a
proven and well-known technology and should not be adversely impacted by site conditions. However, there
would be some difficulties associated with materials handling and low throughput rates due to potentially
high soil moisture content. Construction of a RCRA landfill (Alternative SC-5A) is a proven and
well-known technology. However, site conditions, such as bedrock and water table elevation, actual
volume of wastes to be landfilled, and the necessity to import construction fill material could hinder
construction. As with Alternatives SC-2A and SC-4D, groundwater treatment for construction dewatering is
a well known and reliable technology that is not difficult to implement.
All five alternatives (SC-1, SC-2A, SC-3A, SC-4D, and SC-5A) would potentially require acquisition of
permits/approvals for implementation. In addition, all alternatives would require some degree of
monitoring and maintenance activities. In each case, the activities are easily performed.
G.
Cost
The estimated present worth value of each alternative and the options are as follows:
H.
State Acceptance
NHDES has been involved in the environmental activities at Pease AFB since the mid-1980s, as summarized
in Section II of this document. The RI was performed as an Air Force lead, with state and EPA oversight,
in accordance with the FFA. NHDES has reviewed this document and concurs with the selected remedy. A
copy of the Declaration of Concurrence is attached as Appendix B.
I.
Community Acceptance
The comments received during the public comment periods and the public hearings on both the original and
revised LF-5 Proposed Plans are summarized in the attached document entitled "The Responsiveness Summary"
(Appendix C). The selected remedy has been modified from that presented in the original Proposed Plan
based on public comment, as described in Section X.
X.
THE SELECTED REMEDY
The selected remedy is comprehensive in that it provides for source control and reduction of exposure to
site contaminants via containment, and it also contributes to attainment of overall Zone 1 objectives (to
be presented at a later date in the Zone 1 FS) of migration control for surface water and groundwater.
The selected remedy, Alternative SC-2A, involves excavation and consolidation of sediments, which contain
levels of contamination in excess of selected cleanup levels, on LF-5. Landfill debris from LF-5 that
was predicted to be saturated after capping (as determined via MODFLOW modeling) would also be excavated
and consolidated on LF-5. In addition, LF-2 and LF-4 soil and debris would be excavated and consolidated
on LF-5 (see Sections IV and XII). However, since LF-2 and LF-4 are part of the Zone
1 operable unit, final decision under the Zone 1 ROD will be required prior to implementation of the
proposed excavation and consolidation plan for LF-2 and LF-4. Following consolidation, the landfill
would be covered with a composite-barrier type cap to prevent water infiltration. During construction,
in order to facilitate excavation, groundwater would be collected and treated in a temporary on-site
mobile system. Discharge of treated water to Flagstone Brook was specified in the original Proposed
Plan. Based on public comment to the original Proposed Plan, this strategy was revised to specify
discharge to the local POTW via the sanitary sewer.
A.
Methodology for Cleanup Level Determination
Cleanup levels have been selected for each medium of concern at LF5. Cleanup levels have been established
for chemicals of concern identified in the risk assessment section of the LF-5 Draft Final RI Report and
for contaminants detected at levels exceeding ARARs or risk-based concentrations.
The approach
human health
approach was
NHDES. This
used to determine risk-based concentrations is consistent with the approach used to evaluate
risk in the risk assessment section of the LF-5 Draft Final RI Report (F-500). This
originally presented in a protocols document submitted to EPA Region I and
document was subsequently amended and a revised version was resubmitted.
Risk-based concentrations were derived for the chemicals of concern in each medium, based on the most
reasonable maximally exposed human receptor (current or future) for the medium. The chemicals of concern
include those substances that were identified as chemicals of concern in the risk assessment section of
the LF-5 Draft Final RI Report (F-500). In addition, risk-based concentrations were derived for a few
chemicals that were not selected as chemicals of concern in the RA, but whose maximum reported
concentration exceeded one or more ARAR.
Risk-based concentrations were derived for each noncarcinogenic chemical in a medium based on a goal of a
hazard index of 1. For each carcinogenic chemical, the concentrations were derived based on a goal of
10[-6] (1-in-1 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.,
noncarcinogenic risk).
Cleanup levels were selected after comparing maximum contaminant concentrations detected for each
contaminant of concern in each medium with appropriate chemical-specific ARARs, human health, and, if
applicable, ecological risk-based concentrations.
In general, where ARARs were available and deemed appropriate, the ARARs were selected as cleanup levels.
Where ARARs were not available, or if the basis on which the ARAR was established was not consistent with
LF-5 exposure scenarios, a risk-based concentration was selected as the cleanup goal. When ARARs were
selected as the cleanup goal a human health risk was calculated for the ARAR concentration. Cleanup
levels were not established for chemicals detected at maximum concentrations that were lower than
appropriate ARARs or risk-based concentrations.
Cleanup levels for the various contaminated media at LF-5 are summarized in the subsections that follow.
B.
Groundwater Cleanup Levels/Treatment Goals
The selected remedy for LF-5 does not address groundwater beneath and in the vicinity of LF-5.
Contamination in groundwater will be addressed in the Zone 1 FS, Proposed Plan, and ROD. However, the
LF-5 source control remedy would be expected to contribute to attainment of the Zone 1 objectives and
cleanup goals via removal of contaminant sources and would facilitate the implementation of potential
groundwater actions that will be evaluated during the Zone 1 RI/FS process. For the purposes of this
ROD, the Zone 1 cleanup levels are to be considered (TBC) guidelines for treatment of groundwater
extracted for construction dewatering purposes. Treatment requirements established in the state,
federal, and local POTW pretreatment standards will serve as ARARs.
Table 16 presents ARARs, risk-based concentrations, maximum average detected concentrations in
groundwater, and selected cleanup levels for contaminants detected in groundwater. The cleanup levels
were calculated using the Zone 1 objectives for groundwater.
C.
Landfill Soil and Solid Waste Cleanup Levels
Table 17 presents human health and ecological risk-based concentrations, maximum detected concentrations,
and selected cleanup levels for contaminants detected in soils in the landfill, including the hot spots.
Cleanup levels were established for 22 contaminants in the landfill (excluding hot spot soils) detected
at concentrations exceeding either human health or ecological risk-based concentrations. The majority of
cleanup goals were ecological risk-based concentrations. Ecological risk-based concentrations were
developed as described in Subsection 2.3 of the LF-5 FS. Cleanup goals were also established for
contaminants in the drum removal area hot spot soils. Again, most of the cleanup goals were ecological
risk-based concentrations. Drum removal area hot spot contaminants for which cleanup levels were
established include seven pesticides, one SVOC, 10 PAHs, and four metals. Cleanup levels were not
established for any contaminants in the staged UST location hot spot.
D.
Sediment Cleanup Levels
Table 18 presents human health risk-based concentrations, maximum concentrations detected in sediment,
and TBC criteria that were used in determining ecological risks. These TBC criteria are the NOAA
biological effects levels (ER-Ls) established by Technical Memorandum NOS OMA 52, March 1990. While NOAA
sediment guidelines are not enforceable and, consequently, are not considered ARARs, they appear to be
appropriate toxicity benchmark values and were used in deriving ecological risk-based cleanup levels. In
all cases, these TBCs were selected as sediment cleanup goals. As a result, cleanup goals were
established for five pesticides, seven PAHs, and five metals in the Railway Ditch, and for three
pesticides and two metals in Flagstone Brook. As described in Subsection 2.1 of the LF-5 Draft Final FS,
remediation of sediment in Flagstone Brook will be an objective of the Zone 1 remedy. It should be noted
that DDE, DDD, and DDT were detected in most sediment samples collected at Pease AFB and may be
indicative of background levels. Human health risk-based concentrations were typically orders of
magnitude greater than the NOAA criteria and were not used to select cleanup goals. As shown in Table
2.4-2 of the FS, there are no human health risks associated with these ecologically based TBC sediment
criteria.
E.
Surface Water Cleanup Levels
Table 19 presents ecological risk-based ARARs, human health risk based concentrations, maximum detected
concentrations, and cleanup levels for contaminants detected in surface water in the Railway Ditch. The
cleanup goals were derived to satisfy the Zone 1 Railway Ditch RAOs. As discussed previously, the LF-5
source control remedy would be expected to contribute to attainment of the Zone 1 objectives and cleanup
goals. All cleanup goals were based on New Hampshire surface water standards that are protective of
aquatic life. Chronic criteria were used to evaluate ecological risks in the baseline RA and therefore,
are selected as the applicable ARARs for Zone 1. Cleanup levels were established for one pesticide, 10
metals in the Railway Ditch, and one pesticide and four metals in Flagstone Brook. Human health risks
associated with Zone 1 ARAR concentrations selected as cleanup goals are presented in Table 2.4-7 of the
LF-5 Draft Final FS. As shown in the table, cancer risks greater than 10[-6] exist due to the use of
ARARs as cleanup goals for DDT, 1,4-dichlorobenzene, and TCE. The maximum residual cancer risk was for
TCE (2.15 x 10[-5]). No excess noncancer human health risks would result.
F.
Description of Remedial Components
The chosen LF-5 remedy, whose main remedial goal is source control, will involve the following key
components:
•
Excavation and consolidation of Railway Ditch sediments that contain contaminants at
concentrations exceeding site-specific cleanup goals. A mobile laboratory will be on-site to
confirm the removal of contaminated material. The excavated material will be dewatered and
bulked, if necessary, and consolidated on LF-5.
•
Landfill debris that would still be in contact with groundwater after capping will be excavated
and consolidated on dry locations on the landfill prior to capping. The excavation will be
backfilled with clean fill to a level at least 2 feet above the natural groundwater table after
capping and excavated waste will be placed above the clean fill.
•
The LF-5 debris excavation area will be dewatered, as necessary, during the excavation process
(i.e., the groundwater table will be artificially lowered rendering the area to be excavated dry).
Any groundwater extracted as part of the dewatering process will be treated in an on-site mobile
treatment unit to meet site specific groundwater treatment objectives. Treated groundwater will
be discharged to the local POTW via the sanitary sewer.
•
Soil and waste materials from LF-2 and LF-4 will be consolidated on LF-5. A final decision under
CERCLA for LF-2 and LF-4 will be required prior to implementation of the proposed consolidation
plan for LF-2 and LF-4.
•
Following consolidation of all wastes, including material from LF-2 and LF-4, the landfill will be
capped with a composite barrier cap, which will meet performance standards required in a RCRA cap.
As part of the cap construction, a passive gas collection system will be installed to capture and
vent landfill gases. It is estimated the cap will cover the entire landfill, an area of
approximately 1.2 million square feet. Deed restrictions will be imposed to restrict future
construction activities that could violate the integrity of the cap.
•
The remedial action will be monitored to ensure that the integrity of the cap is maintained as
well as monitoring groundwater elevation to ensure that the waste material remains dry.
•
Five-year reviews would be required as part of the environmental monitoring program. The 5-year
reviews would assess the performance of the containment system and make recommendations, as
appropriate, regarding additional remedial action.
Figure 9 provides a remedial process flow sheet for the selected remedy that depicts the elements
described. Detailed descriptions of the various components follow.
Sediment excavation and consolidation on LF-5 would be performed in a phased approach. Sediments would
first be excavated and placed on compacted soils adjacent to the Railway Ditch. These activities will be
conducted in accordance with the requirements of Env-Ws 415. During excavation, silt fences, hay bales,
and other erosion control measures would be used for control or erosion and runoff. Following
excavation, the sediments would be transported to a central staging area for thickening. Thickening
would involve mixing the sediments with sandy soil in a 1:1 ratio. The use of heavy equipment and
engineering controls, such as containment, during thickening would be facilitated by the installation of
a concrete pad within the staging area. Following thickening, sediments would be placed on LF-5 for
compaction, along with excavated landfill debris, prior to landfill regrading and capping.
As described in Section VII of this ROD, it is anticipated that 3,200 yd[3] of sediments from the Railway
Ditch will be excavated and consolidated, according to the method presented previously. In addition, it
is currently believed that a total of 6,600 yd[3] of sediments from two site wetlands may require similar
remediation. During remedial design, available data (including additional Stage 4 data) will be used to
refine this estimate, as well as to determine the potential for and magnitude of harmful environmental
effects resulting from wetlands excavation. During remedial design, it will be determined whether
excavation in a particular wetland would result in more harm to the ecosystem and greater human health
risks than can be justified by the expected contaminant reduction.
Since excavation would result in destruction of portions of the affected wetlands, excavation will be
avoided wherever possible. The remedial design also will include wetlands restoration or formation of
new wetlands, as necessary.
Currently, restoration of the Railway Ditch following excavation is not anticipated. The ditch will
likely be allowed to stabilize and revegetate naturally. The necessity for immediate stabilization and
revegetation will be reevaluated, if during remedial design, it becomes apparent that regrading and
capping actions at LF-5 would adversely impact the ditch.
This alternative also involves excavation and consolidation of landfill soil and debris predicted to be
in contact with groundwater or within 2 feet above the groundwater table as it would exist following
capping of LF-5. Available groundwater elevation data were used in conjunction with the MODFLOW model to
predict what portion of landfill soils would require excavation under this scenario. All excavated
materials would initially be stockpiled within a bermed area atop the landfill. The MODFLOW model
estimates the volume of excavated soil and debris at a total of 145,500 yd[3], approximately 92,000 yd[3]
of which represents unsaturated materials that are to be returned to the landfill following placement of
clean fill to 2 feet above the water table. The remaining 53,500 yd[3] would be consolidated on the
landfill. Material from LF-2 and LF-4 will also be consolidated on LF-5 prior to capping. The quantities
of this material were estimated to be approximately 76,320 cubic yards from LF-2 and LF-4 combined.
Consolidation of this additional material onto LF-5 is not expected to significantly change the cap
design criteria originally presented in the FS.
During excavation/consolidation activities, erosion runoff and odor and particulate emissions would be
controlled via the use of a temporary runoff detention basin adjacent to the stockpile, and placement of
geomembranes on the stockpile and sideslopes of the excavation areas. Continuous onsite air monitoring
will also be conducted during excavation.
Construction activities during landfill debris excavation and consolidation may be facilitated via
dewatering of the excavation below the static water table. A system of well points would be installed,
which would allow groundwater extraction at an average rate of approximately 50 gpm. Following
extraction, groundwater would be treated in a mobile on-site unit composed of multimedia filtration, ion
exchange, and activated carbon adsorption units. Runoff from the stockpile would also be treated in the
mobile unit.
Treated effluent would comply with MCLs and federal, state, and local requirements for discharge to a
POTW. As such, treated water will be: 1) discharged to the local POTW via sanitary sewer lines, or 2)
used for site dust control (see Figure 9, for a schematic).
Subsequent to consolidation of sediments and landfill materials on LF-5, the landfill would be capped
with a composite barrier that would meet RCRA performance standards. The cap would consist of the
following (from bottom to top):
•
A subbase/gas ventilation layer, consisting of a 12-inch lift of sandy soils placed on a graded
and compacted 12-inch layer of intermediate soil overlying the landfill. Decomposition gases
would be vented via passive gas vents constructed of perforated and solid walled plastic pipe.
The vents would be installed at 200-foot intervals through the final cover and linked to the sand
subbase layer, which would aid in the interception and transmission of gases to the vents. A
geotextile would overlie the sand layer and would serve as a bedding layer for the overlying
composite barrier.
•
A composite barrier layer, consisting of a clay mat overlain by a 40-mil, very low density
polyethylene (VLDPE) geomembrane. The clay mat would be composed of bentonite clay bonded to a
geomembrane or a geotextile.
•
A drainage composite layer, composed of a single-layer high-density polyethylene (HDPE) drainage
net with a nonwoven needle punched geotextile. This layer would allow for water percolation,
while preventing cover soil intrusion.
•
A protective cover layer, comprised of a minimum of 36 inches of drainage sand and 6 inches of
mulched, seeded topsoil. This layer would provide protection against erosion and frost
penetration.
The drainage composite layer and its underlying geomembrane would be terminated in a perimeter anchor
trench. The trench would be fitted with a subdrain of perforated plastic piping embedded in crushed
stone. An estimated 18,000 yd[3] of perimeter landfill materials adjacent to the Railway Ditch and
Flagstone Brook would be excavated and regraded to allow for appropriate construction of the anchor
trench, drainage, access, and setbacks from site waterways. Figure 10 provides a schematic of the final
cover system for the barrier cap at LF-5.
The composite-barrier cap system would cover an estimated 28 acres. Final grading prior to capping would
result in a minimum slope of 5% on top, and a maximum of 33% sideslope. Figure 11 depicts proposed final
grades for the landfill barrier cap. Subsidence of the landfill surface would be monitored annually.
Final grading may be contoured to blend with the surrounding topography. This grading will be presented
in the remedial design.
In addition, plans exist for construction of a North Ramp access road, by the PDA, which will traverse a
portion of the LF-5 cap. The Air Force has worked and will work with the PDA in coordinating the design
and construction activities for the cap and the access road. A figure depicting the planned layout of
the access road can be found in the remedial design of Drawing No. 1, sheet 1 of 6, entitled "North Apron
Access Road - Conceptual Design," by Hoyle and Tanner Associates.
As with excavation activities, capping may result in destruction of wetlands adjacent to LF-5.
(Potentially impacted wetlands are shown in Figure 12.) Mitigation of capped wetlands will involve
construction of wetlands in non-wetlands areas. Appropriate wetlands reconstruction plans will be based
on a wetlands function and value assessment conducted prior to commencement of construction activities.
Groundwater will be monitored via sampling and analysis on a semiannual basis for an assumed duration of
30 years. This duration is typically assumed for costing purposes, per CERCLA guidance. As stated in
Section IX, any future additional actions found to be necessary, regardless of when, will be conducted by
the Air Force. Analysis would likely include VOCs, SVOCs, metals, nitrate, sulfate, chemical oxygen
demand (COD), and other selected inorganics. In addition, pesticides and phenols would be monitored
bi-annually. It is anticipated that surface water at LF-5 will undergo the same sampling regimen as
groundwater, with the addition of biannual PCB analyses. Sediments would be analyzed semiannually for
SVOCs and annually for VOCs, pesticides/PCBs, metals, sulfate, nitrate, and other inorganics. Sediments
would be tested for phenols biannually. As with groundwater, surface water and sediment monitoring may
continue for a period of 30 years. Specifics of the groundwater, surface water, and sediment monitoring
programs will be finalized during remedial design.
In addition to monitoring of ambient air at three stations on the landfill (upwind, downwind, central),
soil gas monitoring along the LF-5 periphery would be conducted to monitor gas buildup beneath the cap.
Approximately eight intermediate soil vents would be installed at locations between passive gas vents.
In all cases, samples would be analyzed for methane and VOCs over a period of 30 years, unless annual
evaluations of the monitoring program indicate that a change in the program is necessary.
Five-year reviews of the containment system would be required for performance assessment and possible
reevaluation and adjustments to the remediation program.
Prior to implementation of Alternative SC-2A, pre-design studies would be required to more accurately
determine design parameters. These studies would include:
•
Wetlands sampling for more accurate determination of design excavation volumes.
•
Additional groundwater modeling to more closely define the depth of the water table following
capping.
•
Modeling of erosion/runoff from the cap to determine whether restoration of Flagstone Brook or the
Railway Ditch (stabilization and revegetation) would be necessary.
•
Evaluation of sampling results for LF-2 and LF-4 to determine additional consolidated soil and
debris volumes in the event that they are consolidated on LF-5.
•
Groundwater treatability studies for determination of mobile treatment unit design parameters.
XI.
STATUTORY DETERMINATION
The remedial action selected for implementation at Pease AFB site is consistent with CERCLA and, to the
extent practicable, the NCP. The selected remedy is protective of human health and the environment,
attains ARARs or invokes appropriate waivers, and is cost-effective. The selected remedy does not
satisfy the statutory preference for treatment that permanently and significantly reduces the mobility,
toxicity, or volume of hazardous substances as a principal element. Additionally, the selected remedy
utilizes alternative treatment technologies and resource recovery technologies to the maximum extent
practicable.
A.
The Selected Remedy is Protective of Human Health and the Environment
The remedy at this site will permanently reduce the risks posed to human health and the environment by
eliminating, reducing, or controlling exposures to human and environmental receptors through treatment,
engineering controls, and institutional controls; more specifically:
•
Excavation and consolidation of contaminated landfill soils and debris and contaminated sediments
on LF-5, thereby eliminating leaching for contaminants to groundwater and reducing receptor
exposure via containment.
•
Dewatering of landfill soils and debris during construction and treatment of water to reduce
toxicity prior to discharge to a local POTW.
•
Capping of landfill to prevent water infiltration and reduce volume of leachate produced, and
further reducing receptor exposure to contaminants.
•
Deed restrictions to prevent future construction that may pose a threat to cap integrity, thereby
maintaining contaminant containment.
Moreover, the selected remedy will achieve potential human health risk levels that attain the 10[-4] to
10[-6] incremental cancer risk range and a level protective of noncarcinogenic endpoints, and will comply
with ARARs and other TBC criteria.
B.
The Selected Remedy Attains ARARs
The selected remedy will attain all of the substantive, nonprocedural requirements of federal and state
ARARs. ARARs for LF-5 are set forth in Table 20 contained in Appendix E of this document, which contains
a complete list of ARARs including the regulatory citation, and a brief summary of the requirement, and
the action to be taken to attain the requirement.
The ARARs identified for LF-5 include:
Chemical-Specific ARARs
There were no chemical specific ARARs identified for the LF-5 selected remedy.
Location-Specific ARARs
•
Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (FWCA)
•
Executive Order 11990 (40 CFR 6, Appendix A), Protection of Wetlands
•
Floodplains Executive Order 11888 Minimization Of Flood Impacts And Protection of Beneficial Value
of Floodplains
•
Clean Water Act, Section 404 (40 CFR 230; 33 CFR 320330), Prohibition of Wetland Filling
•
State of New Hampshire Administrative Code Env-Ws 415 Rules To Prevent Pollution From Activities
In Or Near State Surface Waters
•
State of New Hampshire Administrative Code Env-Wt 300, 400, 600 - Criteria And Conditions For Fill
And Dredging In Wetlands
Action-Specific ARARs
•
•
•
•
RCRA
RCRA
RCRA
RCRA
-
Releases From solid Waste Management Units
Closure and Post Closure
Preparedness and Prevention
Contingency Plan and Emergency Procedures
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
RCRA - Requirements for Tank Systems
RCRA - Use and Management of Containers
RCRA - Temporary Storage of Hazardous Soils
RCRA - Requirements for Equipment Leaks At TSDFs
RCRA - Design and Operating Requirements for Waste Piles and Landfills
CWA - Pretreatment Standards for POTW Discharge
New Hampshire Rules for Identification and Listing of Hazardous Waste
New Hampshire Standards for Owners and Operators of Hazardous Waste Facilities
New Hampshire Pretreatment Standards
New Hampshire Terrain Alteration Requirements
New Hampshire Ambient Air Limits for Toxic Air Pollutants
New Hampshire Fugitive Dust Control Requirements
Policies, Guidelines and Criteria To Be Considered
In addition, the following policies, criteria, and guidelines (to be considered, or "TBCs") will be
considered during the implementation of the remedial action:
•
EPA Risk Reference Doses
•
NOAA Technical Memorandum NOS OMA 52
•
EPA Carcinogen Assessment Group Potency Factors
•
Federal Groundwater Protection Strategy
•
RCRA - Proposed Air Pollutant Emission Standards For Owners and Operators of TSDFs
•
CAA - Proposed Performance Standards for NMOC Emissions at New and Existing Municipal Solid Waste
Landfill
•
CERCLA Off-Site Disposal Policy
Table 20 included in Appendix A provides a complete listing of the ARARs and TBCs for Alternative SC-2A,
including regulatory citations, requirement synopsis, actions to be taken to attain the requirements, and
determinations as to whether the requirements represent ARARs or TBCs.
The following narrative presents a summary of some of the key ARARs and their applicability to the
selected remedy.
Federal and State Water Quality Criteria
The preferred option for discharge of treated groundwater collected during construction dewatering is to
the base wastewater treatment plant. Under this option, discharge limits would be based on factors
regulated by the POTW's NPDES permit, pretreatment regulations, and water pollution controllaws, which
are discussed under action-specific ARARs. Because final discharge from the POTW would be to Great Bay,
federal and New Hampshire Water Quality Criteria are ultimately applicable to this discharge option.
Pretreatment standards are being developed with the City of Portsmouth who is the current operator of the
plant. Both the Pretreatment Standards and CWA NPDES will be attained upon successful establishment of
pretreatment standards for discharge from the on-site mobile groundwater treatment system.
Federal and State Air Quality Regulations
The technologies proposed in the selected remedy will not create any new sources of air emissions.
Therefore, many federal and state regulations governing air quality do not apply to the selected remedy.
The only air quality standards that are applicable are particulate standards promulgated under the Clean
Air Act and New Hampshire Ambient Air Quality Standards. The particulate standard would apply to remedial
construction activities associated with cap installation. These standards would be attained through
monitoring and, if necessary, use of dust suppression techniques or engineering controls. Potential
emissions from the closed landfill would be in compliance with Performance Standards for Nonmethane
Organic Compounds for new and existing municipal landfills as specified under the Clean Air Act.
State Location-Specific Regulations
All of the location-specific ARARs that apply to the selected remedy are based on the close proximity of
the site to Flagstone Brook and Railway Ditch. New Hampshire Environmental Regulations provides that
removal of soils or other activities conducted adjacent to streams must not cause unreasonable soil
erosion, cause unreasonable harm to significant wildlife habitats, unreasonably interfere with natural
water flow, lower water quality, or unreasonably cause or increase flooding. Additionally, NHDES
regulations provides standards for erosion control and soil excavation. Implementation of the selected
remedy would not impact the drainage or natural flow of Flagstone Brook and Railway Ditch. Erosion
control measures will be employed during construction to minimize soil/sediment from entering Flagstone
Brook or Railway Ditch.
Federal and State Hazardous Waste Regulations
The applicability of RCRA and New Hampshire Hazardous Waste Regulations depends on whether the wastes are
RCRA hazardous wastes as defined under these regulations. To date, there is no information available
(i.e., manifests) to indicate that RCRA-regulated materials were disposed of at LF-5. However, because
toxic constituents are present in the waste materials and groundwater at LF-5 many portions of the
federal and state hazardous waste regulations are relevant and appropriate to the selected remedy.
RCRA General Facility Standards, Preparedness and Prevention, and Contingency Plan and Emergency
Procedures will be attained during operation of the mobile groundwater treatment system. The facility
will be designed, maintained, constructed, and operated to minimize the possibility of an unplanned
release that could threaten human health or the environment. During remedial construction safety and
communication equipment will be installed at the site, and local authorities will be familiarized with
site operations. Contingency plans will be developed and implemented during site work and treatment
system operation. A program will be developed for handling storage, and record keeping in accordance
with New Hampshire Hazardous Management Rules.
A post closure monitoring program will be developed for LF-5 in accordance with RCRA Releases from Solid
Waste Management Units and Closure and Post-Closure regulations.
During treatment of contaminated groundwater collected during construction dewatering, sludges containing
some toxic constituents will be produced. A component of groundwater treatment includes laboratory
analysis of this sludge, including Toxicity Characteristic Leachate Procedure (TCLP) testing. If the
sludge fails TCLP testing, this material will be considered hazardous. As a characteristic hazardous
waste, RCRA regulations including Land Disposal Restrictions, will apply and the sludge will be treated
and disposed of in a RCRA Subtitle C facility.
Because toxic constituents are present on site, OSHA regulations protecting worker health
hazardous waste sites are applicable to the implementation and long-term operation of the
remedy. Site workers will have completed training requirements and will have appropriate
and safety equipment on site. Contractors and subcontractors working on site will follow
safety procedures.
and safety at
selected
health
health and
Although LF-5 may take material from LF-2 and LF-4 as subgrade fill, it is not necessary for LF-5 to
obtain a permit under the New Hampshire Hazardous Waste Rules or other New Hampshire regulations.
Landfills 2, 4, and 5 are all part of a single National Priorities List site, Pease Air Force Base, (55
Federal Register 6154, February 21, 1990), and therefore the activities can be viewed as taking place on
site. Moreover, if Landfills 2, 4, and 6 are viewed as separate facilities, CERCLA 104(d)(4) allows the
lead agency broad discretion to treat non-contiguous facilities as one site for the purpose of taking
response action, including where the sites, as here, are related based on geography or on the basis of
waste treatment compatibility. See 55 Federal Register 8690 (March 8, 1990).
C.
The Selected Remedial Action is Cost-Effective
In the judgment of the Air Force, the selected remedy is cost effective (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 through treatment; and short-term effectiveness. The
relationship of the overall effectiveness of these remedial alternatives was determined to be
proportional to their costs.
A summary of the costs associated with each of the source control remedies follows.
presented in net present worth costs.
All costs are
Four of the alternatives are protective and attain ARARs: SC-2A, SC-3A, SC-4D, and SC-5A. Comparing
these alternatives, the selected alternative, SC-2A, combines the most cost-effective remedial
alternative components that were evaluated. The remedy provides a degree of protectiveness proportional
to its costs. Alternative SC-5A is 40% more costly than Alternative SC2A, without providing a
commensurate increase in protectiveness. While Alternative SC-4D considers the EPA preference for a
treatment component via thermal treatment of hot spot soils, it is 20% more costly and does not provide
an increased degree of protectiveness over Alternative SC-2A, since Alternative SC-2A prevents receptor
access to and migration of hot spot contaminants. Alternative SC-3A, like Alternative SC-2A involves the
construction of a cap over the landfill and landfill debris dewatering. However, Alternative SC-3A would
provide for reduction of contaminant migration via artificial lowering of the water table to a level
below in-site debris. In contrast, Alternative SC-2A would reduce migration of contaminants by placing
landfill debris on top of the landfill at least 2 feet above the water table. Each would achieve the
same degree of protectiveness, but Alternative SC-2A would do so at a slightly lower cost. Additionally,
while the costs for Alternative SC-2A and Alternative SC-3A are very nearly the same, it must be
remembered that all present worth costs were calculated assuming a 30-year project life. In reality, the
pump and-treat component of SC-3A would have to continue indefinitely to provide long-term effectiveness.
In addition, continuous pumping of the aquifer beneath LF-5 could adversely affect wetlands in the area
by removing an important source of recharge. Additionally, contaminant migration mitigation is addressed
in the Zone 1 Draft FS, which was completed in August 1993. Alternative SC-1 (no-action) does not meet
all ARARs and is not sufficiently protective of human health and the environment.
A summary of costs for key elements of the selected source control remedy follows.
present worth.
Component of Remedy
Landfill excavation/consolidation
Sediment excavation/consolidation
Groundwater dewatering system
Mobile groundwater treatment system
Composite barrier cap installation
O&M
Miscellaneous
TOTAL
(rounded)
All costs are net
Present Worth ($)
$4,334,050
539,175
651,000
332,610
6,215,160
5,290,669
6,629,721
$23,992,000
O&M includes groundwater, surface water, sediment and air monitoring, 5-year SARA review, surveying and
subsidence monitoring, replacement costs for fencing and monitor wells, and access restrictions.
Miscellaneous includes mobilization and health and safety costs, contingency costs, and additions and
modifications to monitoring systems.
D.
The Selected Remedy Utilizes Permanent Solutions and Alternative Treatment or Resource Recovery
Technologies to the Maximum Extent Practicable
Once those alternatives that attain or, as appropriate, waive ARARs and that are protective of human
health and the environment were identified, the Air Force identified which alternative utilizes 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 best balance of trade-offs among alternatives in terms of: 1) long-term
effectiveness and permanence; 2) reduction of toxicity, mobility, or volume through treatment; 3)
short-term effectiveness; 4) implementability; and 5) cost. The balancing test emphasized long-term
effectiveness and permanence and the reduction of TMV through treatment; and considered the preference
for treatment as a principal element, the bias against off-site land disposal of untreated waste, and
community and state acceptance. The selected remedy provides the best balance of trade-offs among the
alternatives.
Alternatives SC-3A, SC-4D, and SC-5A all out rank Alternative SC-2A based on emphasis on reduction of TMV
through treatment. In addition, both Alternatives SC-3A and SC-4D place greater emphasis on the
preference for treatment as a principal element. However, the costs for Alternatives SC-4D and SC-5A
exceed those for Alternative SC-2A by 20 and 40%, respectively. As described, implementation of the
treatment portion of Alternative SC-3A extends the remedial action beyond the 30-year time frame allotted
for costing purposes, and may adversely impact wetlands at LF-5 via dewatering
of a wetland recharge area. In addition, implementation of remediation will further address the reduction
of TMV and EPA preference for treatment. Alternative SC-1 contains no provision for reduction in TMV or
for consideration of the statutory preference for treatment as a component of remediation.
E.
The Selected Remedy Does Not Satisfy the Preference for Treatment which Permanently and
Significantly Reduces the Toxicity, Mobility, or Volume of the Hazardous Substances as a Principal
Element
The principal element of the selected source control remedy is the containment of waste in LF-5. The
principal element of the Zone 1 remedial alternative is management of contaminant migration via
groundwater and surface waters. Together, these elements address the primary threat at the site, namely,
direct contact with contaminants in landfill soil and debris and migration of this contamination to
groundwater and surface waters.
Treatment is not the principal element of the selected source control alternative because treatment of
landfill debris is not practical or cost-effective given the size and heterogeneity of the landfill
contents. The selected source control remedy may, however, involve treatment of groundwater extracted
during construction dewatering, which should remove much of the contaminants currently present in
groundwater.
XII.
DOCUMENTATION OF SIGNIFICANT CHANGES
The LF-5 Draft Final FS (F-494) was completed in August 1992. The original Proposed Plan for LF-5 was
completed in January 1993. This Proposed Plan documented the U.S. Air Force's selected remedy for source
control at LF-5. During the public comment period (14 January through 13 February 1993) and public
hearing (27 January 1993) that followed the public expressed a preference for consolidating as many Pease
landfills as possible in one area, so as to minimize the total acreage of land that would be designated
as having restricted use. In addition, several other concerns were raised regarding the selected remedy,
such as disposal of treated groundwater from construction dewatering in Flagstone Brook.
In response to public input, the U.S Air Force completed a revised Proposed Plan for LF-5 source control,
which included as a remedial component, the potential consolidation of LF-2 and LF-4 onto LF-5. This
revised Proposed Plan for LF-5 was completed in July 1993 and public comment period for the Revised
Proposed Plan was held from 20 July to 19 August 1993. The following paragraphs describe changes to the
selected remedy and other minor changes that occurred following issuance of the original Proposed Plan
for LF-5.
One modification involves the potential consolidation of materials from two other Zone 1 landfills (LF-2
and LF-4) onto LF-5. The change would result in: 1) an increase in the total volume of landfill soil and
debris to be consolidated (an additional 76,320 yd[3]), 2) possible changes in the final height and
grading of the landfill prior to capping, 3) possible impacts to additional Zone 1 wetlands already
expected to be impacted, and 4) increased short-term risks associated with soil inhalation, due to the
increased time for and extent of excavation. These changes would be expected to be small
in comparison with the entire scope of LF-5 remedial actions and are not expected to significantly alter
the cap design criteria presented in the LF5 FS. These changes would not be expected to adversely impact
the overall ranking of Alternative SC-2A as the preferred alternative. Sections VIII, IX, and X provide
further detail on the potential impacts of adding LF-2 and LF-4 remediation to the scope of Alternative
SC-2A.
Consolidation of LF-2 and LF-4 onto LF-5 is the preferred alternative in part due to public comments on
the original Proposed Plan for LF-5. These comments-expressed a desire for consolidation of as many
landfills as possible in order to retain more land at Pease AFB for unrestricted development. The
remedial action was also selected due to its relative ease of implementation, and due to the resulting
closure of both LF-2 and LF-4 that would result. Excavation and consolidation of LF-2 and LF-4 onto LF-5
is not evaluated in an FS as is the typical practice. Instead, the Air Force's plans to implement this
remedy will be outlined in the Proposed Plan and Record of Decision for Zone 1. A final decision under
CERCLA will be required prior to implementation of the proposed excavation and consolidation plan for
LF-2 and LF-4.
A second modification involves disposal of treated groundwater from construction dewatering. Based on
public comments received on the original Proposed Plan, discharge of treated groundwater extracted during
construction dewatering will be to the sanitary sewer rather than Flagstone Brook.
Since issuance of the revised Proposed Plan for Landfill-5, there have been no significant modifications
to the LF-5 selected remedy. Public comments and comments from EPA and NHDES pertaining to the specifics
of the LF2/LF-4 remedy are addressed in this ROD.
XIII.
STATE ROLE
The NHDES reviewed the various alternatives and has indicated its support for portions of the selected
remedy. The state has also reviewed the RI, RA, and FS to determine if the selected remedy is in
compliance with applicable or relevant and appropriate state environmental laws and regulations. The
NHDES, as a party to the FFA, concurs with the selected remedy for the Pease AFB site. A copy of the
declaration of concurrence is attached as Appendix B.
XIV.
ACRONYMS/REFERENCES
LIST OF ACRONYMS
AALs
AFB
AFCEE/ESB
ANOVA
ARARs
AWQC
BAT
BCT
BFSA
BMP
CAA
CAMU
c-1,2-DCE
CERCLA
Act
CFR
CO
COD
CWA
CZMA
DCA
DCB
DCE
DEHP
DOD
DOT
DRE
DRED
EP
EPA
Ambient Air Limits
Pease Air Force Base
Air Force Center for Environmental Excellence
analysis of variance
Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements
Ambient Water Quality Criteria
Best Available Technology
Best Conventional Technology
Bulk Fuel Storage Area
Best Management Practices
Clean Air Act
Corrective Action Management Unit
cis-1,2-dichloroethylene
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability
Code of Federal Regulations
carbon monoxide
chemical oxygen demand
Clean Water Act
Coastal Zone Management Act
1,1-dichloroethane
1,4-dichlorobenzene
1,2-dichloroethylene
bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate
Department of Defense
Department of Transportation
destruction and removal efficiency
Department of Resources and Development
equilibrium partitioning
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
ER-L
ER-M
ESA
FFA
FR
FWCA
gpd
gpm
GPR
GWTP
HCl
HI
HMTA
HQ AFBDA
IRM
IRP
LDRs
LT[3]
MCL
MCLG
mg/kg
mg/L
MSL
NAAQS
NCP
NESHAP
NHANG
NHCAR
NHDES
NHPA
NOAA
NPDES
NPL
NSPS
NSDWS
O&G
O&M
OSHA
PAHs
PCBs
PCDA
PCE
PCSs
PDA
POHC
POTW
PPE
RA
RAO
RCRA
RD/RA
RfD
RI/FS
RI
ROD
RSA
SARA
SCOPE
SDWA
SMCL
SVOCs
TBC
TCE
TCLP
TMB
TMV
TPHs
Effect Range-Low
Effect Range-Medium
Endangered Species Act
Federal Facilities Agreement
Federal Registry
Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act
gallons per day
gallons per minute
ground penetrating radar
groundwater treatment plant
hydrochloric acid
hazard index
Hazardous Materials Transportation Act
Headquarters Air Force Base Disposal Agency
Interim Remedial Measures
Installation Restoration Program
Land Disposal Restrictions
Low Temperature Thermal Treatment
Maximum Contaminant Level
Maximum Contaminant Level Goal
milligrams per kilogram
milligrams per liter
mean sea level
National Ambient Air Quality Standards
National Contingency Plan
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollution
New Hampshire Air National Guard
New Hampshire Code of Administrative Rules
New Hampshire State Department of Environmental Services
National Historic Preservation Act
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
National Priorities List
New Source Performance Standards
National Secondary Drinking Water Standards
oil and grease
operation and maintenance
Occupational Safety and Health Act
polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons
polychlorinated biphenyls
Paint Can Disposal Area
tetrachloroethene
potential (groundwater) contaminant sources
Pease Development Authority
principal organic hazardous constituent
publicly owned treatment works
personal protective equipment
Risk Assessment
remedial action objective
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
Remedial Design/Remedial Action
reference dose
Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study
Remedial Investigation
Record of Decision
Revised Statute Annotated
Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act
Seacoast Citizens Overseeing Pease Environment
Safe Drinking Water Act
Secondary Maximum Contaminant Level
semivolatile organic compounds
treated as to be considered
trichloroethylene
Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure
trimethyl benzene
toxicity, mobility, or volume
total petroleum hydrocarbons
TRC
TSCA
TSD
ug/kg
ug/L
UIC
USC
USCA
UST
VLDPE
VOCs
WHPA
Technical Review Committee
Toxic Substances Control Act
treatment, storage, and disposal (facility)
micrograms per kilogram
micrograms per liter
underground injection control
United States Code
United States Code Annotated
underground storage tank
very low density polyethylene
volatile organic compounds
Wellhead Protection Area
REFERENCES
F-103
Driscoll, F.G. 1986.
Groundwater and Wells.
Second edition. Johnson Division.
St. Paul, MN.
F-133 EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 1985. Development of Statistical Distributions or
Ranges of Standard Factors Used in Exposure Assessments. Office of Health and Environmental Assessment,
Washington, DC. OHEA-E-161.
F-171 EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 1989. "Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund Volume I." Human Health Evaluation Manual. Part A. Interim Final. Office of Emergency and Remedial
Response. EPA/540/1-89/002.
F-176 EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 1989. "Supplemental Risk Assessment Guidance for the
Superfund Program." Draft Final. U.S. EPA Region I Risk Assessment Work Group. EPA/901/5-89/001.
F-197 EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 1991. Meeting among U.S. Air Force, Roy F. Weston,
Inc., U.S. EPA Region I, and the State of New Hampshire. EPA Region I, Boston, MA. 10 September 1991.
F-200 EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 1991. Protecting the Nation's Groundwater: EPA's
Strategy for the 1990s. Final Report of EPA Groundwater Task Force. 212-1020.
F-202 EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 1991. "Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund:
Volume I: Human Health Evaluation Manual. Supplemental Guidance. "Standard Default Exposure Factors."
Interim Final. Office of Emergency and Remedial Response. Washington, DC. OSWER Directive 9285.6-03.
F-230 Gilbert, R.O. 1987. Statistical Methods for Environmental Pollution Monitoring.
Reinhold Company, New York, NY.
F-368 Rand, J.R. 1990.
Seabrook, NH.
Van Nostrand
Seabrook Updated Final Safety Analysis Report. Vol. II - Site Characteristics.
F-428 U.S. Department of the Air Force. 1993. Installation Restoration Program, Proposed Plan for IRP
Site 5, Landfill 5 - Source Area, Pease AFB, NH. January 1993.
F-447 WESTON (Roy F. Weston, Inc.). 1986. Installation Restoration Program, Phase II Confirmation/Quantification, Stage 1 Final Report, Pease AFB, NH. June 1986.
F-455 WESTON (Roy F. Weston, Inc.).
Report, Pease AFB, NH.
1989.
Installation Restoration Program, Stage 2 Draft Final
F-463 WESTON (Roy F. Weston, Inc.). 1990. Installation Restoration Program, Stage 3, Drum Removal at
IRP Site 5 (LF-5) Informal Technical Information Report for Pease AFB, NH. December 1990.
F-484 WESTON (Roy F. Weston, Inc.). 1991. Installation Restoration Program, Stage 4 Sampling and
Analysis Plan for Pease AFB, NH. January 1991. Draft Final.
F-494 WESTON (Roy F. Weston, Inc.). 1992. Installation Restoration Program, Stage 3C, Feasibility
Study, Landfill 5, Pease AFB, NH. F-500 WESTON (Roy F. Weston, Inc.). 1992. Installation Restoration
Program, Stage 3C Landfill 5 Remedial Investigation, Pease AFB, NH. April 1992. Draft Final.
F-518 WESTON (Roy F. Weston, Inc.).
September 1992.
1992.
Off-Base Well Inventory Letter Report.
Pease AFB, NH.
17
APPENDIX A
ARARS FOR THE LANDFILL 5 SELECTED
REMEDY (ALTERNATIVE SC-2A)
APPENDIX B
DECLARATION OF CONCURRENCE
TO BE PROVIDED
State of New Hampshire
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
6 Hazen Drive, P.O. Box 95, Concord, NH 03302-0095
603-271-3503 FAX 603-271-2867
TDD Access: Relay NH 1-800-735-2964
September 16, 1993
Mr. Alan P. Babbitt
Deputy for Hazardous Materials and Waste;
Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Air Force
(Environment Safety and Occupational Health)
Suite 5C866, Pentagon
Washington, D.C. 20330-1660
RE: Site 5 Source Area Record of Decision
Pease Air Force Base Superfund Site
Pease Air Force Base, New Hampshire
Subject:
Declaration of Concurrence
Dear Mr. Babbitt:
The New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services (NHDES) has reviewed the September 1993 Record of
Decision (ROD) regarding source control remedial actions at Site 5 - Landfill 5 at the Pease Air Force
Base Superfund Site located in Newington and Portsmouth, New Hampshire. Management of contaminant
migration will be addressed in the Zone 1 ROD. The source control action consists of a multi-component
approach for the containment of contaminant source materials as outlined in the following:
I.
Excavation and consolidation of selected Railway Ditch sediments on the existing landfill.
II.
Excavation of soil and solid wastes in Landfills 2 and 4 and consolidation on Landfill 5.
III.
Excavation of soil and solid wastes predicted to be below the water table after capping and
placement of excavated material on the existing landfill. Dewatering of areas requiring
excavation, on-site treatment of the extracted groundwater and discharge to the local wastewater
treatment plant may be necessary. Treated effluent will also be used for site dust control.
IV.
Regrading and capping of the landfill with a composite cap. The capwill consist of the following
(from top to bottom):
•
A protective cover layer, comprised of a minimum of 36 inches of drain sand and 6 inches of
mulched, seeded topsoil.
•
A drainage composite layer, composed of a single-layer high density polyethylene (HPDE) drainage
net with a nonwoven needle-punch geotextile. The drainage composite layer and the underlying
geomembrane will be terminated in a perimeter anchor trench fitted with a subdrain perforated
plastic pipe embedded in crushed stone.
•
A composite barrier layer, consisting of a clay mat overlain by a 40-mil, very low density
polyethylene (VLDPE) geomembrane. The clay mat will be composed of bentonite clay bonded to
geomembrane or a geotextile.
•
A 12-inch subbase gas ventilation layer with gas vents overlain with geotextile to serve as a
bedding layer for the overlying composite barrier.
V.
Destruction of wetlands will require the construction of appropriate wetlands, based on a
functional evaluation and assessment of wetlands prior to commencement of construction activities,
in non-wetland areas.
VI.
Placement of institutional controls. Deed restriction will be imposed to restrict future
activities that could violate the integrity of the cap.
VII.
Conducting long-term environmental monitoring to ensure the integrity of the cap is maintained and
ensure the waste material remains dry.
Based upon its review, NHDES has determined the source area remedial action is consistent with, or
exceeds, applicable or relevant and appropriate state standards. NHDES, as a party to the Pease Air
Force Base Federal Facility Agreement and acting as agent for the State of New Hampshire, concurs with
the selected remedial action. This concurrence is based upon the State's understanding that:
A.
NHDES will continue to participate in the Pease Air Force Base Federal Facility Agreement and in
the review and approval of the Zone 1 ROD, remedial design and action documents, and the following
Landfill 5 operational designs and monitoring plans:
•
•
•
The capping system;
The gas management system and post-closure landfill gas monitoring plan;
The landfill settlement monitoring system and monitoring plan; - The stormwater management
(drainage) system as typically incorporated into landfill closure plans through issuance of a
Significant Alteration-of-Terrain Permit; - The groundwater and surface water monitoring system;
-Long-term operation and maintenance plan; and - Post closure access control systems.
B.
The purpose of the NHDES' closure standards is to ensure, "...all facilities shall be closed in a
manner that does not endanger public health or adversely affect the environment and which
minimizes the potential for accidents that could lead to personal injury or property damage"
(Env-Wm 312.01). NHDES' Landfill Capping System Standards (Env-Wm 2505.10) require landfill
capping systems be designed to, "...reduce leachate generation by limiting to the extent
practicable precipitation and surface water infiltration of the waste, through placement of
low-permeability cover materials over the landfilled areas". The low permeability barrier shall,
"minimize the infiltration of water into underlying wastes so as to limit continued leachate
production and the associated adverse impacts to the quality of groundwater and surface waters;
and consist of a geomembrane with a minimum thickness of 40 mils or a low permeability soil, or
admixture". NHDES' solid waste closure requirements are primarily performance based and as such,
provide a degree of flexibility in allowing capping systems which will provide functionally
equivalent protection of human health and the environment.
The composite cap, specified by the USEPA, is a RCRA Subtitle C (hazardous waste) type closure cap which
exceeds the specifications used at most municipal solid waste landfills (RCRA Subtitle D) in New
Hampshire. Although RCRA C type wastes were found within a portion of the landfill during Stage 2
investigations, a drum removal action was completed in January of 1990. Subsequent test pit excavations
indicate Landfill 5 is primarily a solid waste landfill which contains some hazardous waste constituents
typically found in a municipal solid waste landfill.
The environmental impact from Landfill 5 wastes is similar to the impact associated with a typical
municipal solid waste landfill and would otherwise be closed under the NHDES' solid waste regulations.
C.
The excavation and subsequent consolidation of soil and solid waste, in order to remove waste from
contact with groundwater, is an accepted source control action. The discharge of treated
groundwater, extracted during excavation dewatering activities, from a mobile on-site treatment
unit to the base sewer will require the development of discharge limits in coordination with the
City of Portsmouth (operator of the base wastewater treatment plant) in order to ensure compliance
with the existing National Pollution Discharge Elimination System permit, pretreatment regulations
and water pollution control laws.
D.
Any wetlands adversely impacted by the source control action will be restored, subject to the
provisions of RSA 482-A and Env-Wt 100 through Wt 800.
E.
The Pease Development Authority (PDA) plans to construct an access road to the North Ramp,
adjacent to Landfill 5. The Air Force and the PDA will coordinate the consolidation and the
design and construction of the landfill cap and access road to ensure the integrity of the cap and
capping systems.
F.
Long-term monitoring will be necessary in order to determine the effectiveness of the source
control action. Long-term monitoring of the management of contaminants in groundwater will be
addressed in the Zone 1 ROD. The frequency and location of water quality monitoring is determined
on a site specific basis and is typically required tri-annually until a baseline condition is
established. A comprehensive, detailed review will be conducted by the Air Force, the USEPA and
the NHDES within five years after remediation to ensure the remedy provided adequate protection of
human health and the environment.
Sincerely,
Robert W. Varney
Commissioner
cc: Philip J. O'Brien, Ph.D., Director, NHDES-WMD
Carl W. Baxter, P.E., NHDES-WMEB
Richard H. Pease, P.E., NHDES-WMEB
Martha A. Moore, Esq., NHDOJ-PDA
Michael J. Daly, EPA
Arthur L. Ditto, P.E., AFBDA
James Snyder, AFCEE
PEASE AIR FORCE BASE
Site Information:
Site Name:
Address:
PEASE AIR FORCE BASE
PORTSMOUTH/NEWINGTON, NH
EPA ID:
EPA Region:
NH7570024847
01
Site Alias Name(s):
US AIR FORCE PEASE AFB
13 IDENTIFIED WASTE AREAS
Record of Decision (ROD):
ROD Date:
Operable Unit:
ROD ID:
09/27/1993
02
EPA/ROD/R01-93/085
Media:
Soil, Debris, GW
Contaminant:
VOCs, Other Organics, Metals
Abstract:
The 3-acre Pease Air Force Base (Operable Unit 2) site is part of the
4,300-acre inactive Air Force base located in Newington and
Portsmouth, Rockingham County, New Hampshire. Land use in the
area is predominantly commercial and residential, with wetlands and
woodlands areas located onsite. Current land use at the site is
institutional, agricultural, abandoned land, and unoccupied
residential. Three drainage ditches, the Upper Newfields Ditch, the
Southern Ditch, and the Test Cell Ditch, which receive runoff from
the site, intersect the water table and are discharge points for shallow
ground water. The site has been divided into several zones. Zone 3
includes Buildings 244, 113, 229, 222 (Jet Engine Test Cell), 228,
119, 120, and 227. The Jet Engine Test Cell (JETC), known as Site
34, consists of Building 222, the JP-4 Tank Area, the Fuel Oil
Tank/Waste Fuel Separator Area, the manhole area, the holding tanks
area, and the aircraft parking apron. From 1970 until its closure in
1991, the Air Force used the JETC to test jet engines through
complete power ranges using a process during which water was
injected into the exhaust stack to reduce exhaust temperature,
hydrocarbon emissions, and noise. Runoff from the tests and
washdown activities was routed through an oil/water separator and
then discharged directly into the Test Cell Ditch. A number of
investigations conducted as part of the Department of Defense's
Installation Restoration Program (IRP) in 1983, identified records
that documented that releases of chemical waste from the JETC to
surrounding soil had occurred from the oil/water separator. In 1989,
modifications were made to eliminate wastewater discharged to the
storm drain by collecting the water in two 3,000-gallon underground
storage tanks (USTs). A pilot ground water remediation system,
consisting of two bedrock recovery wells and a ground water
treatment plant (GWTP), was constructed at Site 34 during 1990 and
1991. Ground water from the recovery wells is treated to remove
iron, manganese, and dissolved organic contaminants, and then
discharged onsite to the base sanitary sewer system. In addition to
these actions under the IRP, the JETC drain system was
reconfigured, and holding tanks were installed to eliminate
discharges of effluent from the exhaust stack area to the Test Cell
Ditch; floor drains in the Test Cell Bay were plugged to prevent
contaminant discharges to the Test Cell Ditch; a heating oil tank
suspected of leaking was abandoned; a buried JP-4 tank was
removed; and anaboveground JP-4 tank equipped with appropriate
spill containment was installed. This ROD addresses sources of
contamination, ground water treatment, and debris removal at the
JETC, as OU2. Future RODs will address ground water
contamination in Zone 3 as well as sediment in site drainage ditches
and wetlands, if necessary. The primary contaminants of concern
affecting the soil, debris, and ground water are VOCs, including
benzene, TCE, toluene, and xylenes; other organics, including PAHs;
and metals, including arsenic, chromium, and lead. SELECTED
REMEDIAL ACTION: The selected remedial action for this site
includes excavating approximately 11,900 yd[3] of soil from the JP-4
Tank Area, the Fuel Oil Tank/Waste Fuel Separator Area, the
manhole area, and the holding tank area; temporarily storing and
dewatering 5,350 yd[3] of contaminated excavated soil onsite;
treating the excavated soil offsite using incineration, thermal
desorption, or asphalt batching, or disposing of it at a RCRA or
Subtitle D landfill; disposing of excavated contaminated material at a
location to be determined during the RD phase; backfilling
approximately 6,550 yd[3] of soil not requiring treatment that was
excavated to access contaminated soil; replacing the excavated areas
with clean fill; treating ground water extracted as part of the
excavation and/or dewatering process using the existing pilot GWTP,
which utilizes potassium permanganate injection in conjunction with
flow equalization, greensand filtration, and activated carbon
adsorption, with onsite discharge to surface water; removing
remaining onsite USTs and associated piping from the manhole and
Test Cell Ditch; and conducting environmental monitoring. The
estimated present worth cost for this remedial action is $1,169,298,
which includes an estimated total O&M cost of $111,351.
PERFORMANCE STANDARDS OR GOALS: Cleanup goals are
based on State ARARs and SDWA MCLs. Chemicalspecific soil
cleanup goals include 1 mg/kg for benzene, ethylbenzene, toluene,
and total xylenes. Chemical-specific ground water cleanup goals
include arsenic 50 ug/l; benzene 5 ug/l; lead 15 ug/l; and TCE 5 ug/l
in the excavation dewatering process, and benzene 0.005 mg/l;
toluene 1 mg/l; and total xylenes 10 mg/l for application of the
leaching model. INSTITUTIONAL CONTROLS: Not applicable.
Remedy:
This action addresses the principal threat posed by Site 34 by
preventing endangerment of public health, welfare, or the
environment by implementation of this ROD through remediation of
the soil; thereby minimizing the leaching potential of soil
contaminants to groundwater.
The selected remedy includes the excavation of contaminated soils
and drainage piping associated with Site 34. Also included is
groundwater extraction and treatment for excavation dewatering
purposes. The treatment and/or disposal of soils removed from the
site will include one of the following; thermal desorption elsewhere
on the base, asphalt batching of the soils at an off-base vendor
location, or disposal at a Subtitle D Landfill or RCRA facility, as
deemed necessary at the time of remediation.
Groundwater will be extracted during soil removal activities and
extraction will continue until backfilling with clean fill is completed.
Contaminated groundwater will be extracted via a well and sump
extraction system and will be treated at the existing Pilot
Groundwater Treatment Plant (GWTP) at Site 34. The groundwater
treatment technology to be used includes greensand filtration
followed by activated carbon adsorption. Additional storage capacity
would be required during remedial activities as the rate of extraction
will likely be greater than the existing 20-25 gpm capacity of the
GWTP.
The preferred discharge method for the treated water is the base
wastewater treatment facility as the pilot GWTP already discharges
to the basesewer system. However, coordination with the City of
Portsmouth as the current operator, would be required prior to any
additional discharges. Treated water must meet the pretreatment
standards established by the operator of the base wastewater
treatment facility. Ultimate discharge will be to the Piscataqua River
under a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
permit.
Text:
Full-text ROD document follows on next page.
EPA/ROD/R01-93/085
1993
EPA Superfund
Record of Decision:
PEASE AIR FORCE BASE
EPA ID: NH7570024847
OU 02
PORTSMOUTH/NEWINGTON, NH
09/27/1993
Record of Decision For A Source Area Remedial Action At Site 34
Pease Air Force Base, NH
September 1993
Prepared for:
Headquarters Air Force Base Disposal Agency (HQ AFBDA)
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
Table of Contents
Contents
I.
SITE NAME, LOCATION, AND DESCRIPTION
II.
SITE HISTORY AND ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES
A.
B.
Site Use and Response History
Enforcement History
III.
COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION
IV.
SCOPE AND ROLE OF OPERABLE UNIT OR RESPONSE ACTION
V.
SUMMARY OF SITE CHARACTERISTICS
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
VI.
SUMMARY OF SITE RISKS
A.
B.
VII.
Site Geology
Site Hydrogeology
Site Source Area General Characteristics
Groundwater
Surface Water/Sediment
Human Health Risk Assessment
Ecological Risk Assessment
DEVELOPMENT AND SCREENING OF ALTERNATIVES
A.
B.
Statutory Requirements/Response Objectives
Technology and Alternative Development and Screening
VIII. DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES
A.
IX.
Source Control Alternatives Analyzed
SUMMARY OF THE COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
F.
G.
Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment
Compliance with ARARs
Long-Term Effectiveness
Reduction in Toxicity, Mobility, or Volume Through Treatment
Short-Term Effectiveness
Implementability
Cost
H.
I.
State Acceptance
Community Acceptance
THE SELECTED REMEDY
X.
A.
B.
C.
D.
XI.
Methodology for Soil Cleanup Goal Determination
Groundwater Treatment Goals
Target Surface Water Discharge Concentrations
Description of Remedial Components
STATUTORY DETERMINATIONS
A. The Selected Remedy is Protective of Human Health and the Environment
B. The Selected Remedy Attains ARARs
C. The Selected Remedial Action is Cost Effective
D. The Selected Remedy Uses Permanent Solutions and Alternative Treatment or Resource Recovery
Technologies to the Maximum Extent Practicable
E. The Selected Remedy Will Satisfy the Preference for Treatment That Permanently and Significantly
Reduces the Toxicity, Mobility, or Volume of the Hazardous Substances as a Principal Element
XII.
DOCUMENTATION OF SIGNIFICANT CHANGES
XIII. STATE ROLE
REFERENCES/GLOSSARY
APPENDICES
A.
B.
C.
D.
E.
Tables
ARARs for Pease AFB
Declaration of Concurrence
Responsiveness Summary
Administrative Record Index
List of Figures
Figure No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
Title
General Locations of the IRP Zones and Sites
General Vicinity Land Use Map
Sources of Groundwater and Surface Water Contamination
Stratigraphic Cross Section D-D' Showing Extent of Organic Contamination
in JP-4 Tank Area
Stratigraphic Cross Section E-E' Showing Extent of Organic Contamination
in JP-4 Tank Area
Delineated Wetlands
Proposed Excavation for Removal of Soil Contaminated with Organics
Remedial Process Flow Sheet for Alternative 5A
Available Staging Area
List of Tables
Table No.
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Title
Summary of Stage 2 and 3 Activities
Chemicals of Concern in Soil (0 to 2 feet)
Chemicals of Concern in Soil (0 to 15 feet)
Summary of Total Lifetime Cancer Risks and Hazard Indices
Summary of Detailed Alternatives Evaluation
Risk-Based Concentrations for Groundwater
Selection of Groundwater Cleanup Goals for Application of Leaching Model
- Organics in Groundwater
8 Selection of Cleanup Goals for Organics in Soil
9 Cancer Risks and Hazard Indices Calculated Based on ARARs - Soil
10 Groundwater Treatment Goals for Excavation Dewatering
11 ARARs for Alternative 5A - Excavation and Off-Site Treatment and/or Disposal of Contaminated Soil, and
On-Site Groundwater Treatment and OffSite Disposal for Excavation Dewatering
DECLARATION
SITE NAME AND LOCATION
Pease Air Force Base (PAFB), Site 34
New Hampshire
STATEMENT OF BASIS AND PURPOSE
This decision document presents a selected remedial action designed to reduce potential leaching of soil
contaminants to groundwater at Site 34, Pease AFB, NH. This decision document was developed in accordance
with the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act as amended by the Superfund
Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986, and, to the extent practicable, the National Contingency Plan.
Through this document, the Air Force plans to remedy the threat to human health, welfare, or the environment
posed by contaminated soil associated with Site 34. This decision is based on the Administrative Record for
the site. The Administrative Record for this site is located at the Information Repository in Building 43 at
Pease International Tradeport (Formerly Pease AFB, New Hampshire). The Administrative Record Index as
applies to Site 34 may be found in Appendix E.
The State of New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services (NHDES) and the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (USEPA) concur with the selected remedy.
ASSESSMENT OF THE SITE
Actual or threatened releases of hazardous substances from Site 34 soils, if not addressed by implementing
the response action selected in the Record of Decision (ROD), may present an imminent and substantial
endangerment to public health, welfare, or the environment.
DESCRIPTION OF THE SELECTED REMEDY
This action addresses the principal threat posed by Site 34 by preventing endangerment of public health,
welfare, or the environment by implementation of this ROD through remediation of the soil; thereby minimizing
the leaching potential of soil contaminants to groundwater.
The selected remedy includes the excavation of contaminated soils and drainage piping associated with Site
34. Also included is groundwater extraction and treatment for excavation dewatering purposes. The treatment
and/or disposal of soils removed from the site will include one of the following; thermal desorption
elsewhere on the base, asphalt batching of ?? soils at an off-base vendor location, or disposal at a Subtitle
D Landfill or RCRA facility, as deemed necessary at the time of remediation.
Groundwater will be extracted during soil removal activities and extraction will continue until backfilling
with clean fill is completed. Contaminated groundwater will be extracted via a well and sump extraction
system and will be treated at the existing Pilot Groundwater Treatment Plant (GWTP) at Site
34. The groundwater treatment technology to be used includes green sand filtration followed by activated
carbon adsorption. Additional storage capacity would be required during remedial activities as the rate of
extraction will likely be greater than the existing 20-25 gpm capacity of the GWTP.
The preferred discharge method for the treated water is the base wastewater treatment facility as the pilot
GWTP already discharges to the base sewer system. However, coordination with the City of Portsmouth as the
current operator, would be required prior to any additional discharges. Treated water must meet the
pretreatment standards established by the operator of the base wastewater treatment facility. Ultimate
discharge will be to the Piscataqua River under a National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)
permit.
STATUTORY DETERMINATIONS
The selected remedy is protective of human health and the environment, complies with federal and state
requirements, that are legally applicable or relevant and appropriate to the remedial action, and is
cost-effective. This remedy uses permanent solutions and alternative treatment technologies to the maximum
extent practicable. The method of disposal or treatment of the excavated soils will be determined during the
remedial design phase. The determination will reflect the requirement of CERCLA 120(b)(1) that states
"Remedial actions in which treatment which permanently and significantly reduces the volume, toxicity or
mobility hazardous substances, pollutants or contaminants is a principal element, are to be preferred over
remedial alternatives not involving such treatment". A review will be conducted by the Air Force, the USEPA,
and the NHDES within five years after remediation to ensure that the remedy provided adequateprotection of
human health and the environment.
The foregoing represents the selection of a remedial action by the United States Air Force and the U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, Region I, with concurrence of the New Hampshire Department of Environmental
Services.
Concur and Recommended for immediate implementation:
RECORD OF DECISION SUMMARY
I.
SITE NAME, LOCATION, AND DESCRIPTION
Pease AFB is a National Priorities List site consisting of numerous areas of contamination. This ROD
addresses sources of contamination at the Jet Engine Test Cell (JETC) (also designated as Building 222 or
Site 34). The JETC site occupies approximately 3 acres in the central portion of the former base. The JETC
was used by the Air Force to test the performance of jet engines through complete power ranges.
The former base is located in the Town of Newington and the City of Portsmouth, both of which are in
Rockingham County, New Hampshire. As shown in Figure 1, Pease AFB is located on a peninsula in southeastern
New Hampshire. The peninsula is bounded on the west and southwest by Great Bay, on the northwest by Little
Bay, and on the north and northeast by the Piscataqua River. The City of Portsmouth is located southeast of
the base. Pease AFB occupies 4300 acres and is located approximately in the center of
the peninsula.
The current land uses at Pease AFB are institutional, woodland, agricultural, abandoned land, and residential
(currently unoccupied). Commercial and residential areas are located off base along Spaulding
Turnpike, approximately 1,000 feet northeast of the Pease AFB eastern boundary, and Interstate I-95, which is
located along the southeastern base boundary. The largest commercial complex is a shopping mall located on
the eastern side of Spaulding Turnpike. Figure 2 is the general land use map for the Industrial Shop/Parking
Apron (IS/PA) area of Pease AFB, and shows the location of the JETC within the IS/PA.
Prior to the construction of Pease AFB, the area at what is currently the JETC was primarily woodlands. The
wetlands currently located on-site were not present before construction of the JETC facility, based on review
of historic aerial photos. The development of the wetlands is thought to be due to the grading and paving
activities associated with the aircraft parking apron and Dover Avenue.
The primary sources of historic and current land use information for the JETC area include the USGS
topographic quadrangle maps (Portsmouth Quadrangle, photorevised, 1981), aerial photographs (1958 to 1986),
and a series of maps prepared for the New Hampshire Coastal Zone Study (1975).
Facilities adjacent to the JETC include an aircraft hangar (Building 227) to the north-northwest, the former
Munitions Maintenance Squadron (Building 113), the former Jet Engine Maintenance Building (119) to the
northeast, and the aircraft parking apron to the west.
Building 227 is currently leased from the Pease Development Authority (PDA) by Business Express (a Delta
Commuter Airline) for aircraft storage and maintenance. Buildings 113 and 119 were given the designation
Site 32/36, and are also being investigated under the IRP. Building 113 is currently leased to the U.S.
Navy, and Building 119 is currently used by the PDA for maintenance activities. The aircraft parking apron
is used for aircraft parking, refueling, and minor aircraft maintenance.
Surface drainageways at Pease AFB flow radially away from the center of the peninsula, toward Great Bay to
the west, Little Bay to the northwest and north, and the Piscataqua River to the east. Great Bay, Little
Bay, and the Piscataqua River are all tidally influenced and, consequently, are subjected to semidiurnal
variation in water levels.
The peninsula has relatively low relief, with the runway and aircraft parking apron located on the
topographically highest portion of the peninsula. The runway and aircraft parking apron are on a surface
drainage divide, with runoff to the northeast of the divide ultimately discharging to the Piscataqua River,
and runoff southwest of the divide ultimately discharging to Great Bay.
Locally, the surface hydrology of the JETC may be divided into four hydrologic zones: the paved and
storm-drained aircraft parking apron, the relatively well-drained areas immediately adjacent to the aircraft
parking apron, the poorly drained wetlands, and three drainage ditches, of which the Test Cell Ditch is one.
The relationship of the 100-year floodplain to the JETC site is not known since floodplain location maps are
not available for Pease AFB.
Surface relief in the area is minimal. The change in elevation from a given low point to the adjacent high
is only 10 feet, and slopes are gentle. The highest elevations, approximately 60 feet above mean sea level
(ft MSL), are on the aircraft parking apron. The aircraft parking apron is constructed of portland cement
concrete, and the joints between the concrete slabs have been sealed. The aircraft parking apron is,
therefore, relatively impermeable. The surface of the aircraft parking apron is graded such that
most runoff is directed storm drain catch basins for eventual discharge to McIntyre Brook. McIntyre Brook
flows from the southwestern edge of the runway toward Great Bay. Snowfall on the aircraft parking apron is
cleared and banked on adjacent areas, including the area around Building 222. These snowbanks contribute
meltwater to the site.
Building 222 is on a relative topographic high, and there is a localized drainage divide. Runoff from
Building 222 and areas southwest of the divide flows toward the Test Cell Ditch. Runoff from the Building
222 parking lot and areas northwest of the divide flows toward a northern ditch (Upper Newfields Ditch),
which runs parallel with, and approximately 400 feet northwest of, the Test Cell Ditch. A third drainage
ditch, the Southern ditch, which begins approximately 300 feet southeast of the Test Cell Ditch, joins the
Test Cell Ditch at Dover Avenue. The Test Cell Ditch receives most of the surface runoff from the site
(excluding the storm-drained areas of the aircraft parking apron). The Test Cell Ditch and the Southern Ditch
discharge to the storm drain system under Dover Avenue for eventual discharge to Grafton Ditch. Flow in
Upper Newfields Ditch flows under Dover Avenue near Building 119.
All three ditches intersect the water table and, hence, are discharge points for shallow groundwater. This
is indicated by dry period flows in the ditches. During prolonged dry periods, the ditches may be dry for
most of their lengths as the water table drops. Pumping the GWTP recovery wells affects flow in the Test
Cell Ditch because the water table is lowered by pumping. In the past, the Test Cell Ditch received cooling
and wash down waters discharged from the JETC. The JETC is no longer in use; however, prior to its being
taken out of service, discharges of these waters were rerouted to two holding tanks that are periodically
emptied for off-site disposal. Much of the runoff from other areas of the site either pools or infiltrates
in the wetlands, and does not reach the drainage ditches as overland flow. There is little runoff from the
wetlands; they are primarily an area of infiltration, evapotranspiration, and groundwater recharge. The
wetlands are discussed in greater detail in Subsection 2.4.7 of the Draft Final Site 34 RI Report (F-499).
II.
A.
SITE HISTORY AND ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES
Site Use and Response History
The JETC was constructed in the late 1960s and has been in operation from 1970 until closure of the facility
in 1991. The JETC was used to test jet engines through complete power ranges. During an engine test, water
was injected into the exhaust stack to reduce exhaust temperature, hydrocarbon emissions, and noise. A
single test could use 3,000 gallons or more of water. Additional water and wastes (i.e., fuel, hydraulic
fluid, and cleaning solvents) were generated during washdown activities in the test bay area. Liquids from
the facility were routed through an oil/water separator and then discharged to the Test Cell Ditch. In 1989,
modifications were made to eliminate wastewater discharged to the storm drain by collecting the water in two
3,000gallon underground storage tanks (USTs). A UST for jet fuel (JP-4) was located on-site. A more
detailed description of site history is presented in Sections 1 and 3 of the Draft Final Site 34 RI Report
(F-499).
The JETC was first identified as an area of possible environmental concern in 1983 during the Installation
Restoration Program (IRP), Phase I Problem Identification/Records Search (F-75). The purpose of that study
was to identify and evaluate suspected problems associated with past practices at Pease AFB. Records show
that releases from the JETC to surrounding soils occurred from the oil/water separator. Product was visually
observed in an excavated septic tank trench near Building 222 during Phase I. Following the Phase I study,
Phase II Site Investigations, Stages 1 through 3 were initiated under the IRP.
The Phase II, Stage 1 (September 1984 to January 1986) investigation consisted of completing two borings to
the southeast of Building 222. One soil sample was collected from each boring for chemical analysis. The
results of this investigation are reported in the Phase II, Stage 1 Confirmation/Quantification Final Report
(F-44).
The Phase II, Stage 2 (October 1987) Site Investigation effort focused on further characterizing the extent
of soil contamination and the effect of site activities on groundwater, surface water, and sediment. Stage 2
activities included a soil-gas survey; six soil borings; installation of one bedrock well; and soil,
groundwater, surface water, and sediment sampling for laboratory analyses. The results of the Stage 2
investigation are reported in the Stage 2 Draft Final Report (F-455) and Interim Technical
Report (ITR) No. 2 (F-453).
Based on the data generated during Stage 2, additional field investigations and Interim Remedial Measures
(IRMs) were implemented as part of Stage 3. The 1990 Stage 3 field investigations included installing two
bedrock wells, test pit investigations, and wetlands delineations. IRMs consisted of soil and sediment
removal along the Test Cell Ditch and the design and installation of a pilot groundwater treatment plant
(GWTP).
A pilot groundwater remediation system (GRS) was constructed as an IRM at Site 34 during 1990 to 1991. The
goals of the GRS were to limit the migration of contaminants in groundwater, to remove contaminant mass from
the subsurface, and to evaluate potential treatment technologies to be used in the final site remediation.
The GRS consists of a groundwater recovery system and a GWTP. The groundwater recovery system consists of
two bedrock recovery wells located at the southeastern end of the source area in the dissolved contaminant
plume. The average combined yield from the recovery wells is approximately 21 gallons per minute (gpm).
Groundwater from the recovery wells is treated to remove iron, manganese, and dissolved organic contaminants.
Treated groundwater is discharged to the base sanitary sewer system.
Unit processes used at the GWTP are flow equalization, greens and filtration, and activated carbon
adsorption. During the first 17 months of operation, from March 1991 through July 1992, the GRS recovered
and treated approximately 9.5 million gallons of groundwater.
The effluent from the GWTP consistently meets drinking water standards, the requirements agreed on by NHDES
and the Air Force for discharge to the base sanitary sewer system. The plant has not presented any major
operational difficulties.
The GRS has had more than adequate success in meeting its objectives: the groundwater recovery system has
shown to be effective in capturing both overburden and bedrock water-bearing unit contaminants, and the GWTP
unit processes have been effective in removing organic and inorganic constituents. Based on past operations,
only minor modifications are recommended for continued operation of the Site 34 GRS during the interim period
until final remedial activities are implemented.
Table 1 in Appendix A summarizes the Stage 2 and 3 field investigation activities. Based on the data
collected from these IRP investigations, a Site Characterization Summary (SCS) (F-482) was prepared for the
JETC. The SCS included a working conceptual model and presented data required to complete a Baseline Risk
Assessment (BRA) and Feasibility Study (FS).
The data required to complete a BRA and FS were collected during the 1991 Stage 3 field investigation. The
1991 field investigations included installing 13 bedrock and 5 overburden wells and 19 piezometers;
completing soil borings; and sampling and analysis of groundwater, soil, sediment, and surface water. A
surface geophysical survey was also performed to provide information on bedrock topography and potential
fractures in the JETC area.
In addition to these activities, several other actions have been taken to reduce the potential for
environmental impacts resulting from JETC operations. These actions and their objectives include:
•
Reconfiguration of the JETC drain system and installation of holding tanks to eliminate discharges of
effluent from the exhaust stack area to the Test Cell Ditch.
•
Plugging of floor drains in the Test Cell Bay to prevent contaminant discharges to the Test Cell
Ditch. Fluid generated in the bay are collected with absorbent material and containerized for proper
disposal.
•
In-place abandonment of a heating oil tank suspected of leaking.
•
Removal of the buried JP-4 tank and installation of an aboveground JP-4 tank equipped with appropriate
spill containment.
B.
Enforcement History
In 1976, the Department of Defense (DOD) devised a comprehensive IRP to assess and control migration of
environmental contamination that may have resulted from past operations and disposal practices at DOD
facilities. In response to the Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976 (RCRA) and in anticipation of
CERCLA, DOD issued a Defense Environmental Quality Program Policy Memorandum, dated June 1980 (DEQPPM 80-6),
requiring identification of past hazardous waste disposal sites on DOD agency installations. The program was
revised by DEQPPM 81-5 (11 December 1981), which reissued and amplified all previous directives and memoranda
on the IRP.
Pease AFB was proposed to be added to the National Priorities List (NPL) in 1989 and was listed on the NPL in
1990. On 24 April 1991, the Air Force, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and New Hampshire
Department of Environmental Services (NHDES) signed a Federal Facilities Agreement (FFA) establishing the
protocol and timetable for conducting the Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study (RI/FS) process at Pease
AFB. As part of this timetable, the Air Force, in an effort to streamline activities, designed a basewide
strategy plan for conducting an RI/FS. This strategy plan grouped the numerous sites into seven zones or
operable units based on geographic location, potential receptors, and potential future uses. RI/FS report
will be prepared for each zone. However, ?? to inclusion of Pease AFB on the NPL, ?? sites (including the
JETC) were on an ?? RI/FS approach because of the potential threat they posed to human health and the
environment. The Air Force, EPA, and NHDES agreed that the source area RI/FS reports, and the remedial
actions at these five sites, would continue on an accelerated schedule toward source area cleanup.
III.
COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION
Throughout the site's recent history, there has been community concern and involvement. EPA, NHDES, and the
Air Force have kept the community and other interested parties apprised of site activities through
informational meetings, fact sheets, press releases, and public meetings.
In January 1991, the Air Force released a community relations plan that outlined a program to address
community concerns and keep citizens informed and involved during remedial activities. This plan is
currently being updated and is scheduled for completion by summer 1993.
Numerous fact sheets have been released by the Air Force throughout the IRP at Pease AFB. These fact sheets
are intended to keep the public and other concerned parties apprised of developments and milestones in the
Pease AFB IRP. The fact sheets released to date that concern the JETC are summarized as follows:
In addition to the fact sheets, a number of public meetings have been held concerning the remediation of Site
34. On 14 November 1991, an IRP update public meeting was held, and on 12 January 1993, an IRP public
workshop and meeting were conducted to provide the public with information on the status of the IRP at Pease
AFB. On 30 March 1993, the Air Force conducted a public hearing and information session for the JETC (Site
34) Proposed Plan, during which oral comments on the Proposed Plan were received. A transcript of oral
comments received during its meeting and the Air Force's response to comments are included in the attached
responsiveness summary (see Appendix D). A full transcript is available in the Administrative Record file at
Pease AFB. In addition, a public comment period for the Proposed Plan was conducted between 14 March and 14
April 1993. Responses to written comments received during this period are also included in Appendix D.
A complete Information Repository containing documents relating to the Pease AFB IRP is maintained at Pease
AFB in Building 43. An Administrative Record containing correspondence pertaining to the Pease AFB IRP is
also located in Building 43 at Pease AFB. An index of the Administrative Record is maintained at EPA Region
I Headquarters in Boston, Massachusetts.
IV.
SCOPE AND ROLE OF OPERABLE UNIT OR RESPONSE ACTION
The JETC (Site 34) is one of several contaminant sources within Zone 3. Zone 3 is a grouping of IRP sites and
UST sites within the IS/PA area and is shown in Figure 1. The remedy presented in this Record of Decision
(ROD) provides for source control at the JETC. Remediation at a Superfund site typically involves activities
to remove or isolate contaminant source materials in conjunction with activities that mitigate migration of
contamination through groundwater and/or surface water pathways. This ROD addresses only source control
measures at the JETC. Management of contamination in groundwater for Zone 3 (operable unit 3) will be
addressed in separate zonewide documents, including a separate Zone 3 ROD.
Source material at the JETC have been identified as source are soil and associated USTs. Although sediments
in site drainage ditches and wetlands areas may represent an additional source, they are not addressed in
this document, but will be addressed as part of the Zone 3 remedial decision process. Groundwater and surface
water are not considered source materials; however, treatment goals were generated for these media, as they
may be affected by source control activities.
The selected source control remedy was developed to reduce migration of contaminants from the source area
soils to groundwater. In summary, the remedy provides:
•
Excavation of contaminated soil from the JP-4 Tank Area, the Fuel Oil Tank/Waste Fuel Separator Area,
the manhole area and holding tanks area, and transport to an approved off-site treatment/disposal
facility.
•
Dewatering of the site during soil excavation and treatment of the extracted groundwater at the
existing on-site treatment facility, with subsequent discharge to the base sanitary sewer.
•
Backfilling of the excavation with excavated soil not requiring treatment or clean fill.
•
Environmental monitoring during remedial operations.
•
Removal of USTs and drain piping from the manhole to the Test Cell Ditch.
The remedial action will address the objectives discussed in the following paragraphs.
The results of the BRA for Site 34 soils indicated that no significant adverse health effects on human
receptors are expected. This includes exposure resulting from incidental ingestion of, or dermal contact
with, contaminated soil. The results of the ecological risk assessment indicated that no significant adverse
effects on ecological receptors resulting from site-related contamination are expected. However, the
potential may exist for contaminants to leach from source area soils into groundwater, resulting
in human ingestion of, or direct contact with, contaminated groundwater that may present a health risk.
In consideration of the aforementioned conditions, the remedial response objective for source control actions
at the JETC is to minimize the leaching of contaminants from the source area soil into groundwater, thereby
reducing the potential for the public to ingest or directly contact contaminated
groundwater that may present a health risk.
The remedy at the JETC is for contaminant source control only. The intention for this remedy is to limit
contaminant leaching from soils to groundwater. Owing to the complexity of groundwater flow in the vicinity
of the JETC and the priority of other sites and groundwater contaminant plumes, groundwater issues will be
better evaluated on a zonewide or operable unit basis, rather than a site-specific basis. This site was
targeted for source control because it was considered an area of high contamination and remedial activities
for source control could be started prior to completion of the full groundwater evaluation.
V.
SUMMARY OF SITE CHARACTERISTICS
Section 1 of the Draft Final Site 34 FS Report (F-504) contains an overview of the RI activities conducted at
the JETC, and Table 1 in Appendix A of this document presents a summary of RI activities conducted at Site
34. The significant findings of the RI are presented in this subsection.
A.
Site Geology
The bedrock in the vicinity of the JETC (Building 222) has been identified from samples obtained from a total
of 26 locations as split-spoon samples, well cuttings, and cores. The identified rock types consist of
quartzite, felsite, and diabase. The rock types have been tentatively classified as belonging to the Kittery
Formation, the Exeter diorite, and the diabase dikes of the White Mountain Series.
The bedrock surface beneath the JETC is irregular, probably as a result of preglacial preferential erosion.
Overall, the bedrock ranges from highs of 0 ft BGS (outcrop approximately 15 feet northeast of Building 222)
to lows of greater than 45 ft BGS. A bedrock high located under Building 222 is bordered on the east and
west by steep-sided, broad valleys. Another bedrock high exists east-northeast of Building 222.
The upper few inches to approximately 1 foot of thickness of bedrock at the JETC was found to be weathered
and highly fractured, based on cores collected from eight boreholes. The weathered and/or fractured bedrock
is probably transmissive and grades downward into a more competent bedrock. A well-sorted gravel that
overlies the bedrock ranges from a few inches to more than 1 foot in thickness. The gravel unit usually
consists of angular bedrock fragments and was field-identified with the overlying till unit. This suggests
that the weathered/fractured zone is widely distributed around the bedrock high located under Building 222.
At the JETC, the locations of fractures were determined by use of the very low-frequency electromagnetic
method. Bedrock lineaments at the JETC consist of a set of eight lineaments that trend approximately N42 E
to N54 E. A second set of four lineaments occurs that trends N11 W to N18 W. Two other lineaments that occur
at the JETC have orientations that trend N80 E and N24 W. The lineaments that trend approximately
northeast-southwest probably are related to the regional strike of the bedrock, while lineaments oriented to
the northwest-southeast are probably related to cross fractures or faults in the bedrock.
The lineaments of greatest potential concern for contaminant and water migration near Building 222 are the
five lineaments that surround the Building 222 bedrock high. The set of lineaments that trends
approximately N45 E may represent fractures, faults, or preglacial drainageways. These lineaments may be
paths of least resistance for water migration under and away from Building 222.
In addition to the descriptions of the natural fractures, the rock quality determination (RQD) of the core
was determined. The RQD of a core is equal to the sum of the length of the core pieces separated by natural
fractures that are greater than 4 inches long, divided by the length of cored interval (expressed as a
percentage). At the JETC, the RQD values indicate that portions of the bedrock are highly fractured, which
is indicative of higher potential for groundwater movement through the rock type.
The unconsolidated overburden, except for the weathered bedrock and manmade fill, at Pease AFB appears to
correlate with the Wisconsinan age glacial episode. Based on present and historic drilling information at
Pease AFB, the stratigraphic units are divided into four units as follows (in descending order from youngest
to oldest):
•
•
•
•
Upper Sand (US).
Marine Clay Sand Silt (MCS).
Lower Sand (LS).
Glacial Till (GT).
Each of these units is present at the JETC. The nature and distribution of these overburden units have
contributed to the distribution and migration of contaminants into the surrounding area.
The uppermost surficial materials observed at the JETC are Recent swamp (i.e., bog or marsh) deposits. These
deposits are especially common over the MCS unit, and accumulate in the poorly drained areas only. The
thickness of the swamp or peat deposits varies between 1 foot and 2 feet. Locally, these low-lying surficial
units have been modified by the Air Force using draining or cut-and-fill practices.
Also present at the surface at the JETC are fill materials. The fill material varies from an unconsolidated,
tan, fine-to medium-grained sand near the underground storage tanks (USTs) to a highly compacted, reddish
brown fill under the flight apron. Unconsolidated sand fill near the USTs
and the leaching ?? ranged in thickness from 6 to 8 ft BGS; in places it was present from the ground surface
to bedrock.
The youngest glacial overburden unit at the JETC is the US. In places, the US is difficult to distinguish
from the fill, or where the MCS unit is absent from the LS. The US consists of poorly sorted sand with some
silt and gravel at the JETC. At many locations in the vicinity of the JETC, the US has been replaced by
fill, especially near the USTs and the flight apron.
Stratigraphically underlying ?? US is the MCS. The MCS ranges in thickness from 0 to 22 feet and varies in
texture from a dark gray, plastic clay with minor very thin interbeds of silty material to well-laminated ??
bedded, fine ?? and clays. The dark gray, plastic clay and elastic silt is defined as a mappable unit at the
JETC as one progresses away from the bedrock high toward bedrock lows. The MCS unit grades into an
interbedded fine sand and silt unit near the bedrock high. At the site, contacts between the MCS, US, and LS
are gradational.
The LS at the JETC consists of a poorly sorted, silty sand, with some medium gravel and sand. The LS was
absent only in the vicinity of the bedrock high, near Building 222, where, in the absence of the MCS,
granular deposits were considered part of the US unit.
The GT was found on-site as a more loosely compacted till located near bedrock lows. At some locations, an
interval of well-sorted gravel underlies the GT and was sometimes field-identified as weathered bedrock.
B.
Site Hydrogeology
The three hydrogeologic units that have been identified and evaluated for the JETC area are as follows:
•
Overburden - The saturated overburden deposits, including artificial fill, but not the basal glacial
till.
•
Shallow Bedrock and Glacial Till - The highly weathered and/or fractured interval of crystalline rock
that extends from the base of the lower glacial sand to the top of the competent bedrock. Its
thickness is typically 10 to 20 feet.
•
Deep Bedrock - Generally competent bedrock beneath the shallow bedrock.
in unweathered fractures.
Groundwater flow is primarily
Hydraulic tests and water level data indicate that the hydrogeologic units in the JETC area are hydraulically
connected, even though each unit has distinct hydrologic properties. The degree of interconnection at any
locality depends on the specific lithology of the overburden, the degree of fracturing and weathering, and
the location and amount of groundwater pumping. In the JETC area, under natural conditions, groundwater
discharge from all hydrogeologic units is to surface streams.
C.
Site Source Area General Characteristics
Soil contamination is present in four distinct areas at the JETC: the JP-4 Tank Area, the Fuel Oil Tank/Waste
Fuel Separator Area, the manhole area, and the holding (septic) tanks area (see Figure 3). This subsection
summarizes the contaminants found in these source areas (i.e., area of soil contamination). Additional
information regarding the nature and extent of soil contaminants is presented in Subsection 1.5.1 of the
Draft Final Site 34 FS Report (F-504).
Organic contaminants present in soil at the site consist of three groups of compounds: aromatic VOCs,
chlorinated VOCs, and PAHs (SVOCs). One or more of these groups have been detected in surface (0 to 2 ft
BGS) soil samples and subsurface (greater than 2 ft BGS) soil samples to a maximum depth of 13 ft BGS.
Metals concentrations in subsurface soil present above established background levels coincide with areas of
organic contamination and are interpreted as additives in JP-4 fuel and fuel (heating) oil used at the
JETC. Principally arsenic, chromium, nickel, and sodium are present in areas of hydrocarbon contamination at
concentrations above established background levels. Barium and lead concentrations present in surface soil
above background levels are not associated with the JETC source area or JETC activities.
The highest levels of organic contamination detected in subsurface soils were in the JP-4 Tank Area. The
JP-4 Tank Area is located east of the JETC. Contaminants found in soil in the JP-4 Tank Area consist
primarily of aromatic VOCs and PAHs. JP-4 was also identified by FID fingerprint analyses. No incidences of
spills or other releases from the JP-4 tank have been reported since its installation in 1970. However,
based on the distribution and levels of organic compounds present in soil samples collected adjacent to the
tank, the JP-4 tank is the most likely source of the soil contamination in this area. In October 1991, the
JP-4 tank was emptied to avert any future potential releases. In addition, contaminants detected along the
southeastern edge of the JP-4 Tank Area may be attributable to contaminants that were processed through the
leaching field.
Figures 4 and 5 are stratigraphic cross sections that show a schematic representation of the distribution of
soil contamination for the JP-4 Tank Area, and the relationship between the soil contamination and the
groundwater flow system. These figures illustrate that the migration of contaminants in soil is controlled
primarily by the slope of the bedrock surface. PAHs are the only organic compounds detected in the Fuel Oil
Tank/Waste Fuel Separator Area, which is located adjacent to the southern corner of the JETC. Relatively low
(<2 mg/kg) levels of PAHs were found in fill material at sample depths of 4 and 6 ft BGS, and in the MCS unit
at a sample depth interval of 4 ft BGS. Since PAHs are common constituents of heating oils, the most likely
source of the low levels of PAHs in soil is the abandoned steel heating oil tank. Another possible source of
the PAH contamination is the waste fuel separator. JP-4contaminated effluent from the JETC may have been
released to the soil through breaches in the separator.
Effluent received by the waste fuel separator was normally a mixture of hydraulic fluids, degreasing
solvents, JP-4, and emulsifiers. The emulsifiers were used to enhance the solubility of the petroleum-based
products that accumulate on the floor of the JETC. Both the heating oil tank and the waste fuel separator
were installed in the late 1960s, during JETC construction. Since the heating oil tank was abandoned in 1987
and the waste fuel separator has not been in use since mid-1990, they are no longer a source of soil
contamination at the JETC.
Soil contamination in the manhole area was detected only in the MCS unit and consisted of PAHs and aromatic
and chlorinated VOCs. The primary contributor to total PAH levels in the manhole area is naphthalene.
Aromatic VOCs present in the manhole area consist primarily of BTEX compounds. The primary contributors to
the total chlorinated VOCs are 1,1,1 -trichloroethane and chlorobenzene. The probable sources of these
contaminants are spent solvents used in post-test engine cleaning at the JETC. Washdown liquid containing
solvents collected in the test cell floor drains may have been released through breaches in the drainage pipe
leading to the stormwater manhole or the waste fuel separator. In addition, contaminants that have
accumulated in the manhole area may be migrating to the east, toward the Test Cell Ditch, along the
backfilled trench that was completed for drain pipe installation.
Soil contamination in the holding tanks area consisted primarily of PAHs and was present only in saturated
soil samples (i.e., at the top of the shallow water table). In addition, FID analysis reported target VOCs
also present in this area. No identification or quantification of VOCs was reported. Contamination in this
area was evident prior to december 1989. Petroleum contamination in saturated soil and groundwater was
obvious during holding tank installation. A potential source of soil contamination in this area is
contaminated effluent from the manhole area.
Contaminant Mobility
The fate and transport of contaminants within a soil matrix are dependent on the chemical properties of the
contaminants, soil types, stratigraphy, and climatic conditions. Contaminant fate and migration are further
controlled by transport and attenuation processes. Important transport processes include surface water and
groundwater movement, leaching, and erosion. Attenuation processes include retardation resulting from
sorption, volatilization, photooxidation, photolysis, and chemical and biological degradation.
The major contaminants found at the JETC are components of JP-4 and fuel oil. Significant components of JP-4
include benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, xylenes, and other complex aromatic hydrocarbons, such as
isopropylbenzene. Naphthalene and phenol compounds are also present. Fuel oil contains many of the same
compounds as JP-4 and is predominantly a mixture of straight-chain hydrocarbons, aromatic hydrocarbons
(including trimethyl-benzenes), and some PAHs. Fuel oil also may include some additives, which may contain
phenols, naphthalenes, and heavy metals, such as nickel, chromium, vanadium, zinc, and arsenic (F-299).
The fate of JP-4 in the soil environment is a function of the solubility, volatility, sorption, and
degradation of its major components. Because of their high volatility, moderate solubility, and moderate
adsorption to soils, the major components of JP-4 and fuel oil are relatively mobile and nonpersistent in
soil systems. For JP-4 released to surface soils, volatilization to the atmosphere is the primary fate for
most of the JP-4 hydrocarbons (F-299). In cases in which the source of contamination is leaks from UST
volatile components do not have an opportunity to evaporate before penetrating the ?? and can possibly enter
the water table. Biodegradation of the petroleum hydrocarbons comprising JP-4 fuel is expected to be rapid
under conditions favorable to microbial activity, especially in an initially aerobic environment (F-299).
Because of lower levels of oxygen and organic carbon, contaminant persistence in deep soils and groundwater
may be greater than in shallow soils. Benzene is the most mobile and soluble of the aromatic hydrocarbons,
and that portion that does not volatilize, sorb, or degrade will ?? into the groundwater. The other aromatic
hydrocarbons are less mobile and may be ?? the soil and groundwater.
The PAH compounds, except for the naphthalenes, are strongly sorbed to soils and are slightly mobile to
immobile and, therefore, tend to persist in the soil until they are degraded. Thus, these compounds are not
likely to be found in the groundwater.
D.
Groundwater
Soil at Site 34 is a concern because of the potential for leaching of organic contaminants to groundwater and
surface water Groundwater characteristics are presented as a background for source control activities. A
remedy for groundwater will be discussed in the Zone 3 RI and FS Reports.
Site Groundwater General Characteristics
Physiochemical Considerations
Many of the contaminants detected in soil and sediment were also detected in groundwater. These contaminants
(mostly aromatic hydrocarbons and naphthalene) have relatively low to moderate mobility and are stable.
Contaminants detected in groundwater and not detected or detected at low concentrations in soil or sediment
are normally compounds that are highly mobile, such as TCE and DCE, and may have been leached from the soil
or migrated from outside the JETC area.
JP-4 tends to infiltrate into porous, sandy soils, and since it is lighter than water it tends to accumulate
at the soil-groundwater interface. There, the more soluble components dissolve into the groundwater and
migrate with the groundwater at a rate determined by their retardation factors until they degrade or are
discharged to the surface. In cases in which sufficient amounts of JP-4 have been spilled, a separate light,
nonaqueous-phase liquid (LNAPL) may form on the surface of the water table. To date, free-phase product has
been observed at only one groundwater monitoring point (piezometer 753) during two rounds of water level
measurements (January and April 1989).
Relatively low levels of chlorinated VOCs, such as TCE and DCE, have been detected in groundwater samples.
These compounds have specific gravities greater than water and may exist as dense, nonaqueous-phase liquids
(DNAPLs). However, the fact that the concentrations of these compounds in the groundwater are well below
their aqueous solubilities, and the probability that the principal sources of chlorinated VOCs originate
outside of the JETC area, suggests that separate dense phases are not likely to exist in groundwater at the
JETC.
Conceptual Site Model of Migration Pathways
Based on hydraulic tests and water level data, the deep bedrock, shallow bedrock, and overburden
water-bearing units in the JETC area are hydraulically connected. Although each water-bearing unit has
distinct hydrologic properties, there is communication among units. The interaction of the three
water-bearing units is due to three site conditions: fracturing and subsequent weathering of the bedrock,
overburden deposition, and excavation activities.
Field data that support the premise that the three water-bearing units are in communication include: (1) the
partial dewatering of the overburden and the shallow bedrock water-bearing units observed when groundwater is
pumped from the two bedrock groundwater recovery wells (634 and 635); (2) the lack of clay and silt and the
presence of porous fill in direct contact with bedrock observed in soil borings and test pits; and (3) the
similarities in the organic chemical composition between groundwater sampled from the deep bedrock
water-bearing unit and soil sampled from characterization borings.
The migration of contaminants from the unsaturated overburden soils to the shallow groundwater flow zone is
enhanced by recharge of stormwater. Water level data do not indicate that groundwater in the JETC area has a
specific recharge point or area. In addition, groundwater recharge should be significant in backfilled areas
associated with JETC construction and subsequent site modifications (i.e., holding tanks and leaching field
installations). Geotechnical analysis of two fill samples collected at the JETC reported porosities of 29%
and 40%. Consequently, these fill areas would rapidly absorb stormwater and provide a vertical conduit for
groundwater recharge. Furthermore, Building 222 is situated over a bedrock high (bedrock outcrops just east
of the building), and much of the adjacent fill areas are relatively thin and unsaturated. Groundwater
recharge in these areas is directly into the shallow bedrock water-bearing unit.
With the exception of arsenic, the distribution of metals in groundwater in the JETC area is not apparently
the result of the leaching of metals in source area soils. This premise will be further evaluated and
discussed in the Zone 3 FS Report.
Groundwater discharge to surface water bodies within and adjacent to the site is considered an important
contaminant migration pathway in the JETC area. The hydraulic gradient in the overburden water-bearing unit
indicates that groundwater, in general, flows eastward from the source area and is captured by the Test Cell
Ditch and other topographically low areas within the wetlands.
The Test Cell, Upper Newfields, and Southern Ditches may receive contaminants through discharges from the
overburden groundwater flow zone, from stormwater runoff, or from storm drain discharges (Test Cell Ditch
only).
Based on the location of the JETC source areas, the overburden groundwater gradient, and stormwater drainage,
the Test Cell Ditch is the only plausible surface water pathway for the migration of contaminants originating
from the JETC source areas. Since the completion of the sediment/soil removal IRM and the reconfiguration of
the JETC drainage system, contaminated effluent is no longer a contributor to surface water or sediment
contamination in the Test Cell Ditch.
Contaminant levels in the overburden groundwater flow zone are relatively low; groundwater sampled from well
5016 had a detected total VOC concentration of 3.4 ug/L. Therefore, groundwater discharging into the Test
Cell Ditch also would have relatively low VOC concentrations, and may be further diluted from stormwater
runoff captured by the ditch. This is substantiated by trace levels (3.2 ug/L) of total VOCs found in the
surface water at staff gage 806.
Groundwater contamination will be more fully evaluated in the Zone 3 RI and FS Reports and will be discussed
in the rest of this document only with regard to actual source control issues.
E.
Surface Water/Sediment
Surface water and sediment were not evaluated in the Draft Final Site 34 FS Report. The sediment and surface
water are currently under evaluation in the Zone 3 FS Report, which will include the groundwater, sediment,
and surface water at the JETC. The delineated wetlands for Site 34 and Zone 3 are presented in Figure 6.
A complete discussion of the nature and extent of contamination and contaminant fate and transport is
presented in Sections 4 and 5 of the Draft Final Site 34 RI Report.
VI. SUMMARY OF SITE RISKS
A. Human Health Risk Assessment
A BRA was performed to estimate the probability and magnitude of potential adverse human health and
environmental effects from exposure to contaminants associated with the site. The public health risk
assessment followed a four-step process: (1) contaminant identification, which identified those hazardous
substances that, given the specific site conditions, were of significant concern; (2) exposure assessment,
which identified actual or potential exposure pathways, characterized the potentially exposed populations,
and determined the extent of possible exposure; (3) toxicity assessment, which considered the types and
magnitudes of adverse health effects associated with ex??e to hazardous substances; and (4) risk
characterization, which integrated the three earlier steps to summarize the potential and actual risks posed
by hazardous substances at the site, including carcinogenic and noncarcinogenic risks. The results of the
human health and ecological risk assessments for the JETC are discussed in this subsection and the following
subsection, respectively.
The BRA for this site is limited to the source areas evaluated int?? 34 RI and FS Reports. Nineteen
contaminants of concern were selected for 0 to 2 ft B?? and ?? contaminants of concern were selected for 0 to
15 ft BGS soils. The contaminants of concern constitute a representative subset of the more than 21 and 37
contaminants identified at the site for 0 to 2 and 0 to 15 ft BGS soils, respectively, during the RI. The
contaminants of concern were selected to represent potential site-related hazards based on toxicity,
concentration, frequency of detection, and mobility and persistence in the environment. The contaminants of
concern are listed in Tables 2 and 3 in Appendix A. A summary of the health effects of each of the
contaminants of concern is presented in Section 6 of the Dra??al Site 34 RI Report.
Potential human health effects associated with exposure to the contaminants of concern were ??nated
quantitatively or qualitatively through the development of several hypothetical exposure pathways. These
pathways were developed to reflect the potential for exposure to hazardous substances based on the present
uses, potential future uses, and location of the site. The site is intermittently used for industrial
purposes, and future land use is assumed to be industrial. This assumption is based on the current plans
of the Pease Development Authority (PDA) to attract industrial tenants to the base as a means of boosting the
local economy, because the local economy was adversely impacted by the base closure.
Of the three potential receptors (building workers, maintenance workers, and trespassers) for the soil
pathway, the maintenance worker was selected as the most reasonable maximally exposed individual (RME) under
current and future potential land use. The risk from exposure to surface (0- to 2-foot-deep) soils was
??ated for the current and future maintenance worker, and the risk from exposure to surface and subsurface
(0- to 15-foot-deep) soils was evaluated for the future maintenance worker. The exposure routes that were
evaluated for the soil pathway were incidental soil ingestion and dermal contact with soil.
The following is a brief summary of the exposure pathways evaluated. A more thorough description is
presented in Section 6 of the Draft Final Site 34 RI Report. For each pathway evaluated, an average and a
reasonable maximum exposure estimate were generated corresponding to exposure to the average and the maximum
concentration detected in that particular medium.
Currently, the JETC is not being used; however, it is expected that it will resume an industrial use soon,
and that the future use of this area will be industrial. The current use receptor chosen as the RME for the
soil pathway was the maintenance worker. The current maintenance worker exposure was assumed to be 2
hours/day, 1 day/week, 50 weeks/year, for 25 years. The maintenance worker was also chosen as the future RME
for the soil pathway; however, the exposure frequency is greater because the site will be more active in the
future. The future maintenance worker is projected to be potentially exposed for 2 hours/day, 250 days/year,
for 25 years.
Excess lifetime cancer risks were determined for each exposure pathway by multiplying the lifetime averaged
dose by the chemical-specific cancer slope factor. Cancer slope factors have been developed by EPA from
epidemiological or animal studies to reflect a conservative upper bound of risk posed by potentially
carcinogenic compounds (i.e., the actual risk is unknown, but is likely to be lower than the calculated
risk). The resulting risk estimates are expressed in scientific notation as a probability (e.g., 1 x 10[-6]
for 1/1,000,000) and indicate (using this example) that an average individual is not likely to have greater
that a 1-in-1-million chance of developing cancer over 70 years as a result of site-related exposure, as
defined, to the compound at the stated concentration. Current EPA practice considers carcinogenic risks to
be additive when assessing exposure to a mixture of hazardous substances.
The hazard quotient was also calculated for each pathway as a measure of the potential for noncancer health
effects. A hazard quotient is calculated by dividing the exposure duration-averaged dose 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 to
reflect a daily exposure level that is not likely to present an appreciable risk of an adverse health effect.
RfDs are derived from epidemiological or animal studies and incorporate uncertainty factors to help ensure
that adverse health effects will not occur. The hazard quotient is often expressed as a single value
indicating the ratio of the stated exposure, as defined, to the reference dose value. The hazard quotient is
only considered additive for compounds that have the same or similar toxic endpoint, and the sum is referred
to as the hazard index. (For example: the hazard quotient for a compound known to produce liver damage should
not be added to a second whose toxic endpoint is kidney damage).
Table 4 in Appendix A depicts both the cancer and/or noncancer risk summary for the contaminants of concern
in soil evaluated for the JETC to reflect present and potential future exposure pathways corresponding to the
average and the reasonable maximum exposure scenarios.
From the summary table, it may be noted that the cumulative cancer risk falls within the EPA-acceptable risk
range of 10[-4] to 10[-6]. A majority of the contaminants of concern do not result in an individual risk
greater than 10[-6]. Of the several contaminants whose risks do exceed 10[-6], most do not exceed a risk of
approximately 10[-5]. A more complete discussion of the risks associated with Site 34 is presented in
Section 6 of the Draft Final Site 34 RI Report. The hazard indices for soil were all below the EPA criterion
of 1.
Because the human health risk due to receptor contact with contaminated soils does not exceed the EPA
acceptable risk range, remediation at Site 34 is instead based on the potential of soil contaminants to leach
to groundwater and contribute to unacceptable human health risks through the groundwater exposure pathways.
At this time of the Draft Final Site 34 FS (F-504), the groundwater risk assessment for Zone 3 (including
Site 34) was not complete. However, as of the writing of this ROD, the Draft RI for Zone 3 (F-546) has been
completed, and the risk assessment indicates that the human health risks through groundwater exposure
pathways at Site 34 exceed acceptable levels.
B.
Ecological Risk Assessment
Because ecological receptors are not likely to regularly come in contact with deep soils, the potential risks
to ecological receptors at the JETC were evaluated for surface soils (0 to 2 ft BGS) only. The ecological
receptors selected to evaluate potential environmental risks (i.e., the short-tailed shrew and the American
robin) were chosen because they are representative of the extensive small mammal and ground-foraging avian
communities normally found in this habitat type, shrew and robin exposure includes potential bioaccumulation
of contaminants identified in surface soil and their transfer across trophic levels, and adequate data exist
to determine the likelihood of impact. Short-tailed shrew and American robin exposure routes evaluated in the
ecological risk assessment were incidental soil ingestion and ingestion of earthworms.
The potential risks to the short-tailed shrew and American robin were assessed by comparing estimated daily
doses with Critical Toxicity Values (CTVs). Hazard quotients were calculated, for each contaminant, by
dividing the estimated daily intake by the CTV. Hazard quotients were summed across all exposure pathways
for each contaminant to develop specific hazard indices. Contaminant-specific hazard indices (average and
maximum concentrations) were then added to provide cumulative hazard indices for the
shrew and robin. A hazard index of greater than 1 is usually considered the benchmark for concern.
Hazard indices for the short-tailed shrew and American robin are presented in Tables 1.8-1 and 1.8-2 of the
Draft Final Site 34 FS Report. The cumulative hazard indices for the shrew ranged from 305 to 951; the
primary contributors to these indices were lead and barium intake via the invertebrate (earthworm) ingestion
pathway. Neither the average nor the maximum cumulative hazard index for the robin exceeded 1. Concern over
the uncertainty associated with the exposure results was expressed in the conclusions of the Draft Final Site
34 RI Report. The main concern was related to the impact of anthropogenic contamination that is not
site-related on the outcome of the ecological assessment. Inorganic contaminants such as lead and barium
were detected at the highest concentrations in areas adjacent to the vehicle parking area and may be more
related to normal airfield operation and general industrial use at the base rather than to site-related
activities. When the incremental hazards from these suspected anthropogenic contaminants (lead and barium)
are subtracted from the total hazard indices, risks from JETC-related activities approach EPA's target range.
Therefore, the ecological receptors at the JETC site were not found to be at risk as a result of site-related
contamination.
VII. DEVELOPMENT AND SCREENING OF ALTERNATIVES
A. Statutory Requirements/Response Objectives
Under its legal authorities, the le?? agency's (i.e., Air Force) primary responsibility at NPL and similar
sites is to undertake remedial actions that are protective of human health and the environment. In
addition, Section 121 of CERCLA establishes several statutory requirements and preferences, including that
remedial actions must be protective of human health and the environment; the remedial action, when complete,
must comply with all federal and state environmental standards, requirements, criteria, or limitations,
unless a waiver is invoked; the remedial action selected must be cost effective and use permanent solutions
and alternative treatment technologies or resource recovery technologies to the maximum extent practicable;
and a preference for treatment remedies that permanently and significantly reduce the toxicity, mobility, or
volume (TMV) of the hazardous substances is a principal element for selection over remedies not involving
such treatment. Response alternatives for addressing JETC source areas were developed to be consistent with
these Congressional mandates.
Based on preliminary information relating to types of contaminants, environmental media of concern, and
potential exposure pathways, remedial action objectives were developed to aid in the development and
screening of alternatives. These remedial action objectives were developed to mitigate existing and future
potential threats to public health and the environment.
The remedial response objective for source control actions at the JETC was to minimize leaching of
contaminants from the source area soils into groundwater or surface water, thereby reducing the potential for
the public to ingest or directly contact contaminated groundwater or surface water that presents a health
risk (cumulative cancer risk greater than 10[-4], or a hazard index greater than 1 for each contaminant of
concern). Any further reduction in risk through soil exposure pathways would be a benefit; however, risks
from direct contact with, or ingestion of, source area soils do not exceed the aforementioned criteria and,
as such, remediation based on risk due to site soils is not required. However, as discussed previously, the
Draft Zone 3 risk assessment indicates that groundwater at Site 34 does exceed acceptable risk levels and as
such source actions at Site 34 are expected to reduce groundwater levels.
B.
Technology and Alternative Development and Screening
CERCLA and the NCP set forth the process by which remedial actions are evaluated and selected.
with these requirements, a range of alternatives was developed for the site.
In accordance
With respect to source control, the FS developed a range of alternatives in which treatment that reduces the
TMV of hazardous substances is a principal element. This range included an alternative that removes or
destroys hazardous substances to the maximum extent feasible, thus eliminating or minimizing to the degree
possible the need for long-term management. This range also included alternatives that treat the principal
threats posed by the site but vary in the degree of treatment employed and the quantities and
characteristics of the treatment residuals and untreated waste that must be managed, alternatives that
involve little or no treatment but provide protection through engineering or institutional controls, and a no
action alternative.
In Section 3 of the Draft Final Site 34 FS Report, technologies were identified, assessed, and screened based
on implementability, effectiveness, and cost. These technologies were placed in the categories identified in
Section 300.430(e)(3) of the NCP. Section 4 of the Site 34 FS Report presented the remedial alternatives
developed by combining the technologies. The purpose of the initial screening was to reduce the number of
potential remedial actions for further detailed analysis while preserving a range of options. Each
alternative was then evaluated in detail in Section 5 of the Site 34 FS Report.
In summary, of the eight source control remedial alternatives screened in Section 4 of the Site 34 FS Report,
five were retained for detailed analysis. The following table identifies the five alternatives that were
retained through the screening process:
III.
DESCRIPTION OF ALTERNATIVES
This subsection provides a narrative summary of each alternative evaluated. A detailed tabular assessment of
each alternative is presented in Tables 5.2 -1 through 5.2-5 of the Site 34 FS Report.
A.
Source Control Alternatives Analyzed
The source control alternatives evaluated for the JETC were a no action alternative (Alternative 1) and four
alternatives involving treatment (Alternatives 2A, 3A, 4, and 5A).
Alternative 1 - No Action
The no-action alternative was evaluated in detail in the Site 34 FS Report to serve as a baseline for
comparison with the other remedial alternatives under consideration. Under this alternative, no treatment or
containment of source areas would occur. This alternative does include deed restrictions for the property
and a long-term soil monitoring program. The GWTP currently operating at the site would continue to operate
until the zonewide groundwater issues are addressed in the Zone 3 RI/FS. This alternative would not meet the
cleanup objectives for this site.
Estimated
Estimated
Estimated
Estimated
Estimated
time for design and construction: None.
time for operation: 30 years.
capital cost: $8,300.
O&M (present-worth): $358,700.
total cost (present-worth): $367,000.
Alternative 2A - In Situ Biological/SVE Treatment
This alternative involves the use of an in situ treatment system that would consist of aerobic biological
treatment and soil vapor extraction (SVE) as a means of providing oxygen to the subsurface. The components
of this alternative are as follows:
•
Removal of remaining USTs and associated piping at the site.
•
Groundwater extraction at a rate of 80 gpm to dewater the overburden to enhance SVE and aerobic
biological treatment.
•
SVE and gaseous-phase carbon treatment of the collected vapors.
•
On-site treatment via chemical precipitation, multimedia filtration, and carbon adsorption of
extracted groundwater prior to process use or discharge.
•
Nutrient addition to a fraction of the treated groundwater and reinjection of the nutrient-rich
mixture to stimulate the natural aerobic microorganisms for biological degradation of organic
contaminants.
•
Discharge of excess treated groundwater to the sanitary sewer and/or storm drainage system.
•
Environmental monitoring to evaluate the effectiveness of the remedial action during the remedial
process that consists of vapor sampling and analysis and, after completion of the remedial action,
consists of soil sampling and analysis.
Estimated
Estimated
Estimated
Estimated
Estimated
time for design and construction: 18 months.
time for operation: 4 years.
capital cost: $1,669,200.
O&M (present-worth): $864,600.
total cost (present-worth): $2,534,000.
Alternative 3A - Ex Situ Solid-Phase Biological/SVE Treatment
The components of this alternative are as follows:
•
Groundwater extraction at a rate of 30 gpm to dewater the contaminated soils in preparation for
excavation.
•
SVE and gaseous-phase carbon treatment of the collected vapors.
•
On-site treatment of extracted groundwater with the existing GWTP that consists of greens and
filtration, activated carbon adsorption, and subsequent discharge to the base sanitary sewer.
•
Excavation and ex situ solid-phase biological/vapor extraction treatment of 5,350 cubic yards (yd[3])
(or less, if field screening indicates that removal of the full amount is not necessary) of
contaminated soil.
•
Backfilling of soils not requiring treatment (approximately 6,550 yd[3]) that were excavated to access
soils exceeding cleanup goals in the excavation, following removal of contaminated soils.
•
Backfilling of treated soils into the excavation following remediation.
•
Environmental monitoring of soils to evaluate the effectiveness of the remedial action during the
remedial process.
•
Removal of remaining USTs and associated piping at the site.
Estimated
Estimated
Estimated
Estimated
Estimated
time for design and construction: 18 months.
time for operation: 18 months.
capital cost: $1,265,600.
O&M (present-worth): $469,200.
total cost (present-worth): $1,735,000.
Alternative 4 - Thermal Desorption Treatment
The components of this alternative are as follows:
•
Groundwater extraction at a rate of 30 gpm to dewater the contaminated soils in preparation for
excavation.
•
Excavation of 5,350 yd[3] of contaminated soils (or less, if field screening indicates that removal of
the full amount is not necessary) and temporary stockpiling in a controlled storage area on site.
Mixing and screening of soils would be performed prior to treatment.
•
Thermal desorption treatment of contaminated soils with a mobile unit. The unit would have an
estimated capacity of 50 tons/day, and one pass through the unit would be required.
•
On-site treatment of extracted groundwater with the existing GWTP and subsequent discharge to the base
sanitary sewer.
•
Backfilling of soils not requiring treatment (approximately 6,550 yd[3]) that were excavated to access
soils exceeding cleanup goals in the excavation, following removal of contaminated soils.
•
Backfilling of treated soils into the excavation following remediation.
•
Environmental monitoring of soils to evaluate the effectiveness of the remedial action during the
remedial process.
•
Removal of remaining USTs and associated piping at the site.
Estimated
Estimated
Estimated
Estimated
Estimated
time for design and construction: 2 years.
time for operation: 2 years.
capital cost: $3,512,000.
O&M (present-worth): Included in capital cost.
total cost (present-worth): $3,512,000.
Alternative 5A - Off-Site Treatment
The components of this alternative are as follows:
•
Groundwater extraction at a rate of 30 gpm to dewater the contaminated soils in preparation for
excavation.
•
Excavation of 5,35?? of contaminated soils (or less, if field screening indicates that removal ?? the
full amount is not necessary) and transport to an approved off-site treatment/disposal facility.
•
On-site treatment of extracted groundwater with the existing GWTP, with greensand filtration and
carbon adsorption as process units and subsequent discharge to the base sanitary sewer.
•
Backfilling of 6,550 yd[3] of soils not requiring treatment that were excavated to access soils
exceeding cleanup goals in the excavation, and additional backfilling with clean fill following
removal of contaminated soils.
•
Environmental monitoring of soils to evaluate the effectiveness of the removal action.
•
Removal of remaining USTs and associated piping at the site
Estimated
Estimated
Estimated
Estimated
Estimated
IX.
time for design and construction: 1 year.
time for operation: 1 year.
capital cost: $1,614,000.
O&M (present-worth): Included in capital cost.
total cost (present-worth): $1,614,000.
SUMMARY OF THE COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES
Section 121(b)(1) of CERCLA presents several factors that must be considered when assessing alternatives.
Building on these specific statutory mandates, the NCP has promulgated nine evaluation criteria to be used in
as?? individual ??medial alternatives. A detailed analysis was performed on the alternatives ?? the nine
evaluation criteria to select a site remedy. A summary of the comparison of each alternative's strengths and
weaknesses with respect to the nine evaluation criteria is presented as follows.
Threshold Criteria
The two threshold criteria that follow must be met for the alternatives to
be able for selection in accordance with the NCP:
1.
Overall protection of human health and the environment addresses whether a remedy provides adequate
protection and describes how risks posed through each pathway are eliminated, reduced, or controlled
through treatment, engineering controls, or institutional controls.
2.
Compliance with Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements (ARARs) addresses whether a remedy
will meet all of the ARARs or other federal and state environmental laws, and/or will provide grounds
for invoking a waiver.
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 addresses the criteria that are used to assess alternatives for
the long-term effectiveness and permanence they afford, along with the degree of certainty that they
will prove successful.
4.
Reduction of toxicity, mobility, or volume (TMV) through treatment addresses the degree to which
alternatives employ recycling or treatment that reduces the TMV of contaminants, including how
treatment is used to address the principal threats posed by the site.
5.
Short-term effectiveness addresses the period of time needed to achieve protection and any adverse
impacts on human health and the environment that may be posed during the construction and
implementation period, until cleanup goals are achieved.
6.
Implementability addresses the technical and administrative feasibility of a remedy, including the
availability of materials and services needed to implement a particular option.
7.
Cost includes estimated capital, operation and maintenance (O&M), and present-worth costs.
Modifying Criteria
The modifying criteria that are used in the final evaluation of remedial alternatives generally after public
comment on the RI/FS and Proposed Plan are received are as follows:
8.
State acceptance addresses the state's position and key concerns related to the preferred alternative
and other alternatives, and the state's comments on ARARs or the proposed use of waivers.
9.
Community acceptance addresses the public's general response to the alternatives described in the
Proposed Plan and RI/FS Reports.
A detailed tabular assessment of each alternative according to the nine criteria is presented in Tables 5.2-1
through 5.2-5 of the Site 34 FS Report.
Following the detailed analysis of each individual alternative, a comparative analysis, focusing on the
relative performance of each alternative against the nine criteria, was conducted. This comparative
analysis is summarized in Table 5 in Appendix A.
The following subsection presents the nine criteria, including the two modifying criteria not discussed in
the FS; a brief narrative summary of the alternatives; and the alternatives' strengths and weaknesses
according to the detailed and comparative analysis.
A.
Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment
The no-action alternative (Alternative 1) would not meet this criterion in its
restrictions on property use would preclude use of site groundwater and future
source area soils; however, this alternative does not provide any minimization
source area soil contaminants to groundwater. Additionally, Alternative 1 does
soil contaminant TMV, except by natural processes.
entirety. The use of deed
activities that could disturb
of leaching potential of
not result in a reduction in
Alternatives 2A, 3A, and 4 provide on-site treatment of contaminated source area soils and, therefore, reduce
the potential for contaminant leaching from source area soils to groundwater. This would result in a lower
potential for human and ecological receptors to be exposed to contaminated soils. All three alternatives
result in a reduction of TMV of source area contaminants in both soil and groundwater.
Also, by treating the source area soils on-site, liability is not transferred from the original site to an
off-site disposal facility as for Alternative 5A.
Alternative 5A also minimizes the leaching of source soil contaminants to groundwater by removing
contaminated soils from the site. However, the degree of reduction in TMV of soil contaminants at the
off-site treatment/disposal facility is unknown because the process would be determined at the time of
remedial design to provide the most-cost-effective solution.
Implementation of Source Control Alternatives 2A, 3A, 4, and 5A would ultimately aid in achieving the
groundwater cleanup goals that will be presented in the Zone 3 FS Report.
B.
Compliance with ARARs
Each alternative was evaluated for compliance with ARARs, including chemical -, action-, and
location-specific ARARs. These alternative-specific ARARs are presented in Appendix F of the Site 34 FS
Report.
In the long term, all of the source control alternatives, including the no-action/institutional control
alternative, would achieve chemical-specific ARARs for soil; however, the alternatives differ in the time it
would take to achieve compliance.
With the exception of the no-action/institutional control source control alternative (Alternative 1), all of
the source control alternatives would meet, in time frames ranging from 1 to 4 years, all soil ARARs. In
this time frame, Alternative 1 would, most likely, not comply with the State of New Hampshire requirement
that soils containing spills of virgin petroleum products achieve a 1 ppm total BTEX concentration. All
other alternatives would meet this requirement.
The ability of source control alternatives to achieve chemical specific ARARs in groundwater was not
evaluated in the Site 34 FS. However, all alternatives that involve extraction and treatment of groundwater
would achieve groundwater treatment goals and/or surface water discharge treatment goals prior to groundwater
disposal.
It is expected that all alternatives would comply with action- and location-specific ARARs, except the New
Hampshire Virgin Petroleum Policy with regard to treated soil disposal. The policy indicates that soil
requiring treatment should not be placed within 0.5 mile of a water supply well. As the Haven well is less
than the prescribed 0.5 mile, Alternatives 3A and 4 would not meet this location-specific ARAR. However, it
should be noted that a groundwater divide exists between Site 34 and the Haven Well, such that contamination
from Site 34 groundwater is highly unlikely to reach the Haven Well as the groundwater flow is away from the
Haven Well.
C.
Long-Term Effectiveness
Since Alternative 1 would not be effective in reducing contaminant leaching to groundwater, potential human
health and environmental risks associated with untreated source area soils would still exist. As previously
indicated, leaching would reduce the concentrations of contaminants of concern, but this would require many
years to achieve and would result in continuing groundwater contamination.
Alternatives 2A, 3A, 4, and 5A all involve removal and/or reduction of contaminant concentrations in source
area soil. It is expected that all of these alternatives would achieve a residual soil BTEX concentration of
1 ppm; would, therefore, reduce further unacceptable leaching; and, in turn, would reduce contaminant
concentrations in source area groundwater. The 1-ppm total BTEX limit is based on a state policy for virgin
of long term protectiveness to human health and the environment and differ primarily in the time required to
achieve cleanup goals. Because it is difficult to predict the effectiveness of in situ treatment, it was
assumed at this time that this technology could achieve the same degree of organic contaminant removal as
alternatives involving excavation and treatment or disposal. All four of the action alternatives would
further reduce current risks to human health and the environment resulting from ingestion of, and dermal
contact with, contaminated soils. This would be attributable predominantly to the treatment or removal of
PAHs, which contribute to human health risks exceeding 10[-6]. Alternatives 4 and 5A would likely provide the
greater decreases in risks, since the biological processes in Alternatives 2A and 3A may not provide as
significant treatment of PAHs. However, as the risk is below acceptable levels, this does not greatly affect
comparative effectiveness.
D.
Reduction in Toxicity, Mobility, or Volume Through Treatment
Because it does not involve treatment of source area soils, Alternative 1 would not provide a reduction in
contaminant TMV other than natural attenuation that would occur over many years. It is expected that
Alternatives 2A, 3A, and 4 would all provide the same order of magnitude reduction in TMV of source area soil
contaminants through treatment. Alternative 5A, which involves excavation and off-site disposal of source
area soils, would greatly reduce the volume of soil contaminants present at Site 34; however, the degree of
overall reduction in contaminant TMV that would occur at an off-site facility is unknown, as the
treatment/disposal method would be determined at the time of remedial design.
All of the alternatives that incorporate extraction and treatment of groundwater would involve some reduction
in TMV of contaminants in source area groundwater.
E.
Short-Term Effectiveness
Implementation of Alternative 1 involves the fewest short-term impacts on human health and the environment
because it does not involve activities that would disturb contaminated soil. However, this alternative would
not provide any reduction in source area soil contamination other than natural attenuation that would occur
over time; therefore, protection of human health and the environment would not be achieved for many years.
Alternatives 3A, 4, and 5A all involve similar short-term impacts on site workers, the surrounding community,
and the environment as they all involve excavation and subsequent handling of source area soils. However,
because Alternative 5A involves off-site disposal rather than on-site treatment, there may be fewer impacts
on site workers and the surrounding community than for Alternatives 3A and 4 because of fewer on-site soil
handling activities. However, there would be potential risks to communities associated with accid?? spills
that could occur during transport to the disposal facility.
Potential impacts on workers and the surrounding community would be associated with the release of vapors
(volatile BTEX constituents) and particulates during excavation and soil handling activities. Methods that
would be implemented to ensure the protection of workers and area residents during soil excavation and
treatment are considered reliable and include use of interim geomembrane covers on exposed source area soils,
use of appropriate worker personal protective equipment (PPE), implementation of dust and odor suppression
techniques to control fugitive dust emissions, and continuous air monitoring to evaluate site conditions.
Implementation of Alternative 2A, which involves in situ treatment of source area soil, would involve fewer
short-term impacts on site workers and the surrounding community than Alternatives 3A, 4, and 5A because it
does not involve extensive excavation and subsequent handling of source area soils. This alternative may,
however, have a greater impact on surrounding wetlands environments because of long-term (2 to 4 years)
dewatering of source area soils. The alternatives involving excavation (Alternatives 3A, 4, and 5A) would
have a slight impact on the wetlands because approximately 0.25 acre would be excavated and/or used as access
to the excavated area and would require restoration. Wetlands deline?? for Site 34 and all of Zone 3 is
shown in Figure 6. The area impacted as a result of dewatering for Alternative 2A is difficult to predict;
however, restoration would occur naturally when the water table returns to its static level. Potential
impacts on wetlands from Alternative 2A will be evaluated after the Zone 3 groundwater modeling effort is
completed.
Alternatives 3A, ??, and 5A, which involve installation of on-site treatment systems and/or stockpiling of
excavated soil, may require clearing of surrounding woodlands. However, precautions would be taken to ?? the
impacted areas by using existing cleared areas effectively.
Alternative 5A would likely ach?? action sooner than the other alternatives because it involves off-site
disposal; however, this would depend ultimately on the time frame over which the disposal facility can accept
excavated soils. It is expected that Alternative 4 could achieve protection in one construction season,
while Alternative 3A could achieve protection in one or two construction seasons. Alternative 2A would
require several years to achieve protection. As previously indicated, Alternative 1 would not achieve
protection for many years.
F.
Implementability
Alternative 1 would be the most readily implementable alternative because it involves the fewest remedial
activities. Alternative 2A would be the most difficult alternative to implement technically because it
involves in situ treatment, which is, in general, not as well-proven and more difficult to control than ex
situ treatment processes. This alternative involves numerous activities including dewatering of source area
soils, distribution of nutrients, and implementation of SVE. All of these activities would have to be
carefully controlled to maintain aerobic degradation. Many site-specific conditions could interfere with the
implementation of these activities, thus inhibiting the ability to achieve successful biotreatment of source
area soil contamination. Because Alternative 2A also involves more extensive groundwater extraction than the
other alternatives, the existing groundwater treatment system would have to be modified, thereby complicating
the implementation of this alternative to a greater level than the other remedial alternatives.
Alternatives 3A and 4, which both involve excavation and on-site treatment of source area soils, would be
similar in ease of implementation. Both of these technologies are fairly well-developed and have been used
successfully at other sites. However, site-specific conditions could complicate implementation of these
technologies at Site 34. For example, potential site specific difficulties associated with implementation of
low-temperature thermal desorption (Alternative 4) may include possible soil handling problems because of
high moisture content and/or silty soils that could significantly affect system throughput and cost. Both of
these treatment technologies would require preliminary bench-scale and, possibly, pilot-scale testing prior
to implementation of the technology.
testing are expected.
No major technical problems associated with bench- or pilot-scale
It is expected that Alternative 5A, which involves soil excavation and off-site disposal, would be the
alternative most easily implemented technically, except for Alternative 1.
In terms of administrative feasibility, Alternative 4 would be the most difficult alternative to implement
administratively because it would likely require the greatest time for obtaining agency permits/approvals.
Thermal desorption would require rigorous testing to ensure compliance with applicable air quality
requirements. Alternative 5A, which involves off-site disposal of source area soil, would require federal
and state agency permits for off-site transportation and disposal, which should be easy to obtain, and
consultation with the selected disposal facility to ensure that the excavated material is within
specifications.
All of the alternatives involve technologies and services that are readily available through multiple
vendors. Treatment, storage, and disposal facilities also are readily available to accept treatment
residuals.
G.
Cost
The estimated present-worth costs of the alternatives follow:
H.
State Acceptance
NHDES has been involved in oversight of the study of Pease AFB since the mid-1980s, as summarized in Section
II. NHDES, as a party to the FFA, has reviewed this document and concurs with the selected remedy. A copy
of the Declaration of Concurrence is attached as Appendix C.
I.
Community Acceptance
The comments received during the public comment period and the public hearing on the Proposed Plan and FS are
summarized in the Responsiveness Summary (see Appendix D). The selected remedy has not been significantly
modified from that presented in the Proposed Plan.
X.
THE SELECTED REMEDY
The remedy selected for the JETC (Alternative 5A) involves the excavation of source area soils (shown in
Figure 7), with on-site treatment of groundwater extracted for dewatering purposes. The soil will be sent to
an off-site treatment/disposal facility. A remedial process flow sheet for alternative 5A is presented in
Figure 8.
Several options are available for off-site treatment and/or disposal of contaminated soil at Site 34. The
disposal will be in accordance with all applicable regulations at the time of disposal, and the actual method
of disposal or treatment will be determined during the design phase. The treatment/disposal options include:
•
Remote (on-/off-base) treatment/disposal facilities such as:
•
•
•
•
Incinerators.
Low-temperature thermal treatment units.
Asphalt batching plants.
Landfills.
With respect to off-base facilities, it is important to consider possible treatment requirements. EPA's land
disposal restrictions and treatment standards would only apply if the contaminated soil were to be classified
as a hazardous waste. The soil would be a hazardous waste if it failed the TCLP test and was not considered
exempt from RCRA because of the petroleum product exemption. However, JETC soils were tested and did not
exceed TCLP criteria and, therefore, would be classified as nonhazardous materials. Total petroleum
hydrocarbon (TPH) concentrations in the Test Cell Ditch sediments were in the same range of concentrations
(1,000 to 10,000 mg/kg) observed in soil samples from the site. It is therefore reasonable to expect that
the site soils would pass the TCLP as a nonhazardous waste, and treatment would not be required before
disposal. Subsection 2.2 of the Draft Final Site 34 FS Report discusses the exclusion for
petroleum-contaminated media that fail the TCLP.
There are at least two commercial landfill ?? the region that would accept the untreated soils. This option
would provide strictly for disposal, not treatment, of the contaminated soils. The nearest commercial
incinerators designed to treat contaminated soil are located several hundred to more than 1,000 miles from
the site. Off-site incineration is not a cost effective method of managing Site 34 soils.
Low-temperature thermal treatment, using technology as described for Alternative 4, is a more realistic
option than incineration for the off-site treatment of nonhazardous petroleum-contaminated soils. A number
of permitted facilities in New Hampshire are capable of providing this service. The soil would be excavated
and transported to the treatment facility, and the decontaminated soil could either be returned to the site
for backfilling, or used for some other application (e.g., landfill cover). The use of a thermal desorption
unit for several sites may be a viable option depending on remediation activities planned for other sites on
base.
An option that provides for both treatment and resource recovery is the incorporation of the contaminated
soils as aggregate into asphalt paving material. There are at least two asphalt batching plants within 50
miles of the site that provide this service, one of which has already been used to treat and dispose of the
sediments removed from the Test Cell Ditch. The cost of off-site treatment and resource recovery is
comparable with off-site landfill disposal.
Asphalt batching or low-temperature thermal treatment appear to be the preferred options for managing Site 34
soils on-base or off-site, provided the assigned facility complies with all permit requirements. The
petroleum contaminated soils would have to meet the qualification and quantification standards established by
NHDES policy and the specific standards of the treatment facility. NHDES sets minimum requirements for
analytical methods, acceptable limits, and frequency of sampling. Based on the Test Cell Ditch sediment
removal and disposal, the treatment and disposal of Site 34 soils in an asphalt batching process or on-base
thermal desorption unit appears to be feasible.
A.
Methodology for Soil Cleanup Goal Determination
Since only sources of contamination at Site 34 are being addressed at this time, the only medium evaluated in
the FS and the ROD are site soils. The need for action on the site soils was initially evaluated for direct
human and ecological receptor contact and the potential for soil contaminants to leach to and adversely
impact groundwater above applicable standards.
Based on data developed in the RI and the BRA, remedial measures to address risk associated with possible
human and ecological receptor exposure to source soils are not warranted because present and future risks are
within or below EPA's acceptable risk range. However, available data suggest that area soils are a potential
source of release of VOCs to groundwater. This potential release may result in an unacceptable risk to human
receptors who may come in contact with contaminated groundwater. Therefore, cleanup levels for soils were
established to protect the water-bearing unit from potential unacceptable soil leachate. The Summers Model
was used to estimate residual soil cleanup goals that are not expected to impair future groundwater quality.
Interim cleanup levels for groundwater were used as input into the leaching model. Final groundwater cleanup
goals will be developed as part of the Zone 3 FS. Tables 6 and 7 in Appendix A present the input data for
the leaching model.
If the predicted protective soil cleanup goal concentrations were not capable of being detected with good
precision and accuracy, then the practical quantification limits of the common soil analytical methods were
selected as the cleanup goals for soils. The contaminants evaluated for potential leaching cleanup goals
were the contaminants of concern in soil and contaminants detected in both soil and groundwater. Table 8 in
Appendix A summarizes the soil cleanup goals required to protect public health and the water-bearing unit
from exceeding standards based on leaching of chemicals from soils to groundwater. The leaching potential was
determined for organics only. The Summers Model results were then compared to maximum detected
concentrations in soil and to ARAR values. Only one organic contaminant of concern exceeded a Summers Model
value. Although 2-Butanone exceeded the leaching-based cleanup goal, it was decided that as only one
location exceeded the leaching-based cleanup goal, and 2-butanone is a common laboratory contaminant, it did
not warrant remediation.
Since the model did not indicate the need for remediation based on leaching potential alone, the soil cleanup
goals were based on the NHDES Virgin Petroleum Products Policy, which allowed a maximum value of 1 ppm total
BTEX in soil. The NHDES cleanup goals were chosen because this regulation is appropriate for this situation.
At the request of EPA Region I, Table 9 in Appendix A was developed and presents the human health risks
associated with the soil cleanup goals chosen. It should also be noted at this time that monitor wells in
the source area (617 and 6041) clearly indicate that the groundwater at Site 34 is being adversely impacted.
It is anticipated that source area activities will help to reduce the groundwater contaminant levels and
result in a shorter time required for groundwater remediation.
These cleanup levels in soils are consistent with ARARs for groundwater, attain EPA's risk management goal
for remedial actions, and have been determined by EPA to be protective of human health and the environment.
These cleanup goals must be met at the time of implementation. The area of excavation is shown on Figure 7.
B.
Groundwater Treatment Goals
The target levels developed in the FS are only intermediate values for groundwater treated in conjunction
with source control actions; final groundwater remediation objectives have been developed in the Zone 3 Draft
FS.
At the time of Site 34 FS Report preparation, groundwater was not under evaluation at the JETC; however,
groundwater will be evaluated fully in the Zone 3 RI and FS Reports. Target treatment levels for groundwater
were developed for groundwater extracted during source area remedial activities. The target treatment levels,
presented in Table 10 in Appendix A, are based on MCLs, not site-specific risk-based values. These levels
are considered to be target treatment levels only for groundwater extracted for source area remedial
activities.
The extraction of groundwater during remedial activities is only designed to provide easier access to
contaminated soils. Source area groundwater and management of migration groundwater has been addressed in a
separate Zone 3 FS document. A risk assessment has been performed on groundwater contamination at the JETC
as part of the Zone 3 Draft RI Report to determine whether groundwater remedial action is warranted, and
final groundwater cleanup goals have been established for Zone 3 in the Zone 3 Draft Feasibility Study.
C.
Target Surface Water Discharge Concentrations
At the time of Site 34 FS Report preparation, surface water was not fully evaluated at the JETC.
water has subsequently been evaluated in the Zone 3 Draft RI and Draft FS Reports.
Surface
However, target treatment levels for groundwater were developed in the Site 34 Draft Final FS Report for
discharge of treated groundwater to surface water during source area remedial activities. The target
treatment levels are presented in Tables 2.5-6 and 2.5-7 in the Draft Final Site 34 FS Report, and are based
on AWQC, not site-specific risk-based values.
These levels are considered to be target treatment levels for surface water discharge of treated groundwater
extracted for source area remedial activities. A BRA will be performed on surface water contamination as part
of the Zone 3 RI Report to determine whether surface water remedial action is warranted.
D.
Description of Remedial Components
The remedy chosen for the JETC, whose main remedial goal is source control, will involve the following key
components:
•
Excavation of JETC soils that contain contaminant concentrations exceeding site-specific cleanup
goals. A mobile laboratory will be on-site to confirm the removal of contaminated material. The
excavated material will be temporarily stored and dewatered, on-site, prior to removal to the off-site
facility.
•
The excavation will be backfilled with clean fill to a level that matches existing grade ?? the site.
•
Excavated contaminated materials will be transported to a treatment/disposal location as soon as
scheduling allo?? The type of disposal facility will be chosen (i.e., asphalt batch, RCRA ??),
Subtitle D landfill, on-base thermal desorption unit, or other) at the time remedial design based on
cost and other factors.
•
Groundwater extracted as part of the excavation and/or dewatering process will be treated at the
existing pilot GWTP. Holding tanks will be provided for storage of groundwater prior to treatment.
•
Prior to completion of remedial activities, EPA and NHDES will conduct a review as part of the
regulatory approval process to ensure that the remedial soil cleanup goals have been me??
Figures 7, 8, and 9 provide a plan of the estimated excavation area, process flow sheet, and available
staging area at Site 34, respectively. Detailed descriptions of the various components are provided in this
subsection.
It is expected that 5,?? yd[3] of soils from Site 34 will be excavated; volumes are presented in the
following table. Of the possible total of 5,350 yd[3], up to 1,200 yd[3] may need to be excavated using wet
excavation techniques and/or draining of the excavation via pumping from the bottom of the hole. As discussed
previously, the final volume removed will be determined at the time of remediation using field screening
techniques. The volumes presented are estimated and are subject to field verification.
Since a portion of the area to be excavated will result in destruction of adjacent wetlands, erosion and
sedimentation controls, as well as careful excavation, will be used in the soil removal in these areas. Any
wetlands adversely impacted will be restored.
During excavation and temporary storage activities, erosion runoff and VOC and particulate emissions will be
controlled via the use of a temporary runoff detention area adjacent to the stockpile, and placement of a
geomembrane on the stockpile and sideslopes of the excavation areas. Continuous onsite air monitoring also
will be conducted during excavation and stockpiling activities.
Some dewatering of the excavation area will occur with the use of well points, which will extract groundwater
at a rate of approximately 30 gpm. Following extraction, groundwater will be stored in five 20,000-gallon
storage tanks. Groundwater will then be treated at the existing pilot GWTP at Site 34, which consists of
potassium permanganate injection in conjunction with greensand filtration for iron and manganese removal
followed by activated carbon adsorption for VOCs removal. Treated effluent will meet groundwater treatment
goals as presented in Subsection 2.5 of the Site 34 FS Report, and will be discharged to the base sanitary
sewer system.
Excavated soil could potentially be transported to an asphalt batch facility, RCRA TSD facility, Subtitle D
landfill, or an on-base mobile thermal desorption unit. The treatment/disposal method will be chosen
during remedial design phase based on cost and analytical testing prior to removal activities, and will
reflect the statutory preference for treatment contained in CERCLA Section 121(b).
XI.
STATUTORY DETERMINATIONS
The remedial action selected for implementation at the Pease AFB JETC site is consistent with CERCLA and, to
the extent practicable, the NCP. The selected remedy is protective of human health and the environment,
attains ARARs, and is cost effective. The selected remedy also may satisfy the statutory preference for
treatment that permanently and significantly reduces the TMV of hazardous substances as a principal element.
Additionally, the selected remedy uses alternate 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 site will permanently reduce the risks posed to human health and the environment by
eliminating, reducing, or controlling exposures to human and ecological receptors through treatment and by
engineering controls, more specifically:
•
Excavation of contaminated soil and transport to an offsite treatment/disposal facility will reduce
the leaching potential of contaminants from soil to groundwater, which would result in unacceptable
levels in groundwater.
•
Treatment of water extracted during construction dewatering will reduce the toxicity of the water
prior to discharge.
•
Backfilling with clean materials will allow future unrestricted use of the site.
B.
The Selected Remedy Attains ARARs
The selected remedy will attain all of the substantive, nonprocedural requirements of federal and state
ARARs. ARARs for Site 34 are set forth in Table 11 of Appendix A to this document which contains a complete
list of ARARs, including the regulatory citation, and a brief summary of the requirement, and the action to
be taken to attain the requirement. In addition, policies, criteria, and guidelines (to be considered, or
"TBCs") will also be considered during the implementation of the remedial action.
•
Chemical-Specific ARARs.
•
•
Location-Specific ARARs.
•
•
•
None
Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (FWCA).
State of New Hampshire Regulations.
Action-Specific ARARs.
•
Hazardous Materials Transportation Act (HMTA).
•
•
•
•
CWA.
CAA.
State of New Hampshire Regulations.
To Be Considered (TBCs) Criteria.
•
•
•
•
EPA Health Advisories (HAs).
EPA Risk Reference Doses (RfDs).
EPA Carcinogen Assessment Group Potency Factors.
NH Interim Policy for the Management of Soils Contaminated From Spills/Releases of Virgin
Petroleum Products.
The basewide ARARs document (F-530) identifies ARARs for Pease AFB, and Appendix B identifies those for Site
34, and provides detailed discussions of both ARARs and TBCs. Table 11, in Appendix A of this document,
provides a complete list of ARARs and TBC criteria for Alternative 5A, including regulatory citations,
requirement synopses, actions to be taken to attain the requirements, and determinations as to whether the
requirements represent ARARs or TBCs criteria.
Federal and State Drinking Water Regulations. Although not an ARAR, Federal and State Drinking Water
Standards were used in the development of soil cleanup goals based on leaching. The drinking water standards
were entered into a leaching model to estimate soil concentrations which would not cause groundwater to
exceed the drinking water ARARs.
Drinking water standards, MCLs and other guidance and criteria to be considered (TBCs) were also used to
develop of target cleanup levels for the remediation of groundwater extracted during construction dewatering
at the site.
Chemical-specific ARARs and risk-based target cleanup levels will be met by extracting the contaminated
groundwater within the area of excavation, reducing the potential for leaching.
Federal and State Pretreatment Standards. The preferred option is discharge of treated water to the base
POTW. Under this option, discharge limits would be based on factors regulated by the POTW's existing NPDES
permit, pretreatment regulations, and water pollution control laws. Pretreatment standards would be
developed with the POTW. Both the Pretreatment Standards and CWA NPDES will be attained upon successful
establishment of pretreatment standards for discharge from the groundwater treatment plant.
Federal and State Air Quality Regulations. The treatment technologies proposed in the selected remedy will
not create any new sources of airemissions. Therefore, many federal and state regulations governing air
quality do not apply to the selected remedy. The only air quality standards that are applicable are
particulate standards promulgated under the Clean Air Act and New Hampshire Ambient Air Quality Standards.
The particulate standard would apply to remedial construction activities. These standards would be attained
through monitoring and, if necessary, use of dust suppression techniques or engineering controls.
It is noted that, although the requirements, standards and regulations of the Occupational Safety and Health
Act of 1970, 29 U.S.C., et seq. are not ARARs, they will be followed throughout the Site 34 remedial
activities where necessary See 55 Federal Register 86 9-80, March 8, 1990.
It is also noted that the following New Hampshire requirements and guidance, classified as TBCs, will be
followed: NH Administrative Code, EnvWs 411, Control of Underground Storage Facilities; NH Administrative
Code, Env-Ws 412, Reporting and Remediation of Oil Discharges; and NH Interim Policy for the Management of
Soils Contaminated from Spills/Releases of Virgin Petroleum Products. ?? state requirements and guidance are
TBCs because they re?? to the ??-up ?? petroleum products which are not hazardous substances as defined by
CERCLA. However, since the soil to be remediated at Site 34 contains such petroleum products, the Air Force
will follow the requirements as appropriate.
C.
The Selected Remedial Action is Cost Effective
In the judgment of the Air Force, the selected remedy is 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 th?? her 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. The
relationship of the overall effectiveness of this remedial alternative was determined to be proportional to
its costs.
A summary of the costs associated with each of the source control remedies is presented as follows.
costs are presented in net present-worth costs.
All
Of the aforementioned alternatives, four attain ARARs and are protective: Alternatives 2A, 3A, 4, and 5A.
Alternative 5A is the most cost effective alternative overall, and provides a degree of protectiveness
proportional to its cost. Alternative 3A is 7.5% more costly than 5A and does provide slightly more
protection to human health and the environment; however, this additional protection is not necessary since
the risk to human health and the environment at the JETC is acceptable under both alternatives.
Alternative 5A provides greater short-term effectiveness at a lower cost than Alternative 3A or 4.
Alternative 5A provides equal or greater long-term effectiveness, reduction in TMV (dependant upon final
treatment/disposal chosen at the time of remedial design), implementability, and compliance with ARARs and
TBC criteria as Alternatives 2A, 3A, and 4, but at a lower cost. The costs for Alternatives 3A and 5A were
very nearly the same; however, the time until remediation is completed is very different. Alternative 3A
would require approximately 2 years, while Alternative 5A would most likely not require more than 6 months.
Continuous pumping of the water-bearing zone at the high rates required for Alternative 2A could adversely
affect wetlands in the area by inhibiting groundwater recharge of the wetlands. Alternative 1 (no action)
does not meet ARARs and would not provide any additional protection of human health and environment. A
summary of costs for key elements of the selected source control remedy (Alternative 5A) is presented as
follows. All costs are net present-worth.
Miscellaneous includes mobilization/demobilization, access restrictions, health and safety, air monitoring,
and SARA review upon completion. Contingency costs and additions and O&M costs are not listed as they are in
the table on the previous page.
D.
The Selected Remedy Uses Permanent Solutions and Alternative Treatment or Resource Recovery
Technologies to the Maximum Extent Practicable
Once the Air Force identified those alternatives that attain or, as appropriate, waive ARARs and that are
protective of human health and the environment, 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 determining which alternative provides the best balance of
tradeoffs among alternatives in terms of the following issues: (1) long-term effectiveness and permanence;
(2) reduction in 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 in TMV
through treatment, and considered the preference for treatment as a principal element, the bias against
off-site land disposal of untreated waste, and community and state acceptance. The selected remedy provides
the best balance of tradeoffs among the alternatives.
Alternative 5A slightly outranks Alternatives 2A, 3A, and 4 in terms of permanence; however, all four action
alternatives (Alternatives 2A, 3A, 4, and 5A) have equal rank in long-term effectiveness. In addition,
Alternatives 2A, 3A, and 4 place greater emphasis on treatment, but exceed the cost of Alternative 5A by 57%,
7.5%, and 117.5%, respectively, and do not reduce the TMV of contaminants any more than would Alternative 5A,
which would most likely involve resource recovery/reuse technologies. Alternatives 2A, 3A, 4, and 5A involve
some upgrades to the Site 34 GWTP that may be incorporated in to the Zone 3 groundwater remediation and as
such possibly serve in both capacities. All four action alternatives would result in some adverse impact on
wetlands, with Alternative 5A creating less impact because of a shorter time of remediation and less time
until restoration occurs. Alternative 1 contains no provision for reduction in TMV of contaminants or for
consideration of EPA's preference for treatment as a component of remediation.
E.
The Selected Remedy and the Preference for Treatment that Permanently and Significantly Reduces the
Toxicity, Mobility, or Volume of the Hazardous Substances as a Principal Element
The selected remedy may not satisfy the statutory preference for treatment which permanently and
significantly reduces the toxicity, mobility or volume of hazardous substances as a principal element
depending on the treatment and/or disposal method chosen at the time of implementation. The selected
remedy is consistent with EPA's preference for containment of wastes which it is not practicable to treat.
The principal element of the selected source control remedy is offsite treatment/disposal of source area
soil. This element addresses the primary threat at the site (contamination of groundwater resulting from
leaching of source area soils), and complies with the NHDES Policy on Virgin Petroleum Products (F-338). The
method of disposal or treatment of the excavated soils will be determined during the remedial design phase.
The determination will reflect the requirement of CERCLA 120(b)(1) that states "Remedial actions in which
treatment which permanently and significantly reduces the volume, toxicity or mobility hazardous substances,
pollutants or contaminants is a principal element, are to be preferred over remedial alternatives not
involving such treatment".
XII.
DOCUMENTATION OF SIGNIFICANT CHANGES
The Air Force presented a Proposed Plan (Alternative 5A) for remediation of the site in December 1992.
source control portion of the preferred alternative included:
The
•
Excavation of contaminated soil and transport to an approved off-site treatment/disposal facility. It
is expected that approximately 5,350 yd[3] of contaminated soils would be excavated. Soil samples
would be collected and analyzed as the operation concluded to ensure all soil above the cleanup goals
was removed.
•
Dewatering of the site during soil excavation and treatment of the extracted groundwater at the
existing on-site treatment facility, with subsequent discharge to the base sanitary sewer.
•
Backfilling of the excavation with excavated soil not requiring treatment or clean soil.
•
Environmental monitoring during remedial operations.
•
Removal of the remaining USTs and piping from the manhole to the Test Cell Ditch. This tank cluster
and any remaining piping at the site will require removal incidental to excavation of the surrounding
contaminated soil.
There have been no significant changes in the selected alternative since publication of the Draft Final Site
34 FS Report and Proposed Plan other than the removal of the JP-4 tank and the oil/water separator in fall
1992.
It should be noted that several regulations have been updated and some are now enforceable, where they were
not previously. Appendix B presents Subsection 2.2 of the Draft Final Site 34 FS Report. Regulatory
updates, as of the signing of this ROD, have been added to the appendix.
XIII.
STATE ROLE
NHDES, as a party to the FFA, has reviewed the various alternatives and has indicated its support for the
selected remedy. The state has also reviewed the Site 34 RI, BRA, and FS to determine whether the selected
remedy is in compliance with ARARs. The State of New Hampshire concurs with the selected source control
remedy for the JETC. A copy of the Declaration of Concurrence is attached as Appendix C.
REFERENCES
F-44 ATSDR (Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry). 1991. Toxicological Profile for Endosulfan,
Endosulfan Alpha, Endosulfan Beta, and Endosulfan Sulfate. Prepared by Clement Associates, Inc.
F-75
CH[2]M Hill.
1984.
Installation Restoration Program Records Search
F-123
ENVIROFATE.
1992.
On-line computerized database.
Pease AFB, NH.
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency.
F-142 EPA (U.S. Environmental Protection Agency). 1986. Superfund Public Health Evaluation Manual.
of Emergency and Remedial Response. EPA 540.1-86/060.
Office
F-257 Howard, P.H. 1989. Handbook of Environmental Fate and Exposure Data for Org?? Chemicals, Vol. I.
Large Production and Priority Pollutants. Lewis Publishers, Chelsea, MI.
F-260 HSDB (Hazardous Substances Data Bank). 1992.
Me??ne. Toxicology Data Network, Washington, DC.
Computerized Database. On-Line.
F-299 Little, A.D Inc. 1989. The Installation Restoration Program Toxicology Guide.
Oak Ridge National Laboratory.
National Library of
Volumes 1 through 4.
F-338 NHDES (New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services). 1989. Policy for Management of ??
Contaminant from Spills/Releases of Virgin Petroleum Products. Multin?? Oil Contamination Task Force.
F-382 Schnoor, J.L., C. Sato, D. McKenchie, and D. Sahoo. 1987. "Processes, Coefficients, and Models for
Simulating Toxic Organics and Heavy Metals in Surface Waters." Prepared for Environmental Research
Laboratory. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. Athens, GA. EPA/600/3-87/015.
F-450 WESTON (Roy F. Weston, Inc.).
Project Plan, Pease AFB, NH.
1987.
Installation Restoration Program Stage 2 Quality Assurance
F-453 WESTON (Roy F. Weston, Inc.). 1988. Interim Technical Report No. 2 for the Installation Restoration
Program, Stage 2, Pease AFB, NH. August 1988.
F-455 WESTON (Roy F. Weston, Inc.).
Pease AFB, NH.
1989.
Installation Restoration Program, Stage 2 Draft Final Report,
F-456 WESTON (Roy F. Weston, Inc.).
Project Plan, Pease AFB, NH.
1989.
Installation Restoration Program, Stage 3 Quality Assurance
F-482 WESTON (Roy F. Weston, Inc.). 1991. Installation Restoration Program, Stage 3C Site Characterization
Summary, IRP Site 34, Pease AFB, NH. July 1991.
F-499 WESTON (Roy F. Weston, Inc.). 1992. Installation Restoration Program Stage 3C, Jet Engine Test Cell
- Site 34 Source Area Remedial Investigation. Pease AFB, NH. November 1992, Draft Final.
F-504 WESTON (Roy F. Weston, Inc.). 1992.
Study, Pease AFB, NH. May 1992. Draft.
Installation Restoration Program Stage 3C, Site 34 Feasibility
F-530 WESTON (Roy F. Weston, Inc.).
AFB, NH. January 1993.
Installation Restoration Program, Stage 4, Basewide ARARs, Pease
1993.
F-546 WESTON (Roy F. Weston, Inc.). 1993. Installation Restoration Program, Stage 4, Zone 3 Remedial
Investigation Report, Pease AFB, NH. April 1993.
LIST OF ACRONYMS
AAL
AFB
AFCEE/ESB
ARARs
ATSDR
AWQC
BAT
BCT
BDAT
BGS
BMPs
BRA
BTEX
CAA
CFR
CO
CTVs
CWA
CZMA
DCE
DEQPPM
DNAPL
DOD
DOT
DRE
DRED
EPA
ESA
FFA
FS
ft MSL
FWCA
FWQC
gpm
GRS
GT
GWTP
HA
HC
HCl
HI
HMTA
HQ AFBDA
HSDB
IRM
IRP
IS/PA
ITR
JETC
LDRs
LNAPL
LS
MCL
MCLG
MCS
MTBE
NAAQS
NESHAP
NHCAR
NHDES
NHDPHS
NHPA
NO[2]
NPDES
ambient air limit
Pease Air Force Base
Air Force Center for Environmental Excellence/Base Closure Division
Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements
Agency for Toxic Substances and Disease Registry
Ambient Water Quality Criteria
best available technology
best conventional technology
best demonstrated available technology
below ground surface
Best Management Practices
Baseline Risk Assessment
benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene and xylene
Clean Air Act
Code of Federal Regulations
carbon monoxide
Critical Toxicity Values
Clean Water Act
Coastal Zone Management Act
dichloroethene
Defense Environmental Quality Program Policy Memorandum
dense, nonaqueous-phase liquid
Department of Defense
Department of Transportation
destruction and removal efficiency
Department of Resources and Economic Development
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Endangered Species Act
Federal Facilities Agreement
Feasibility Study
feet above mean sea level
Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act
Federal Water Quality Criteria
gallons per minute
groundwater remediation system
Glacial Till
groundwater treatment plant
Health Advisory
hydrocarbons
hydrogen chloride
hazard index
Hazardous Materials Transportation Act
Headquarters Air Force Base Disposal Agency
Hazardous Substances Data Bank
Interim Remedial Measure
Installation Restoration Program
Industrial Shop/Parking Apron
Interim Technical Report
Jet Engine Test Cell
land disposal restrictions
light, nonaqueous-phase liquid
Lower Sand
Maximum Contaminant Level
Maximum Contaminant Level Goal
Marine Clay and Slit
methyl tert-butyl ether
National Ambient Air Quality Standards
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants
New Hampshire Code of Administrative Rules
New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services
New Hampshire Division of Public Health and Services
National Historic Preservation Act
nitrogen dioxide
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
NPDWS
NPL
NSDWS
NSPS
O&M
O[3]
OSHA
PAHs
Pb
PCBs
PCSs
PDA
PELs
POHC
POTW
PPE
RA
RCRA
RfD
RI/FS
RME
ROD
RQD
RSA
SCS
SDWA
SMCL
SO[2]
SVE
TBC
TCE
TCFM
TMV
TPHs
TRC
TSCA
TSD
UIC
US
UST
WHPAs
National Primary Drinking Water Standards
National Priority List
National Secondary Drinking Water Standards
New Source Performance Standards
operation and maintenance
Ozone
Occupational Safety and Health Act
polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons
Lead
polychlorinated biphenyls
potential groundwater contamination sources
Pease Development Authority
Permissible Exposure Limits
principal organic hazardous constituent
publicly owned treatment works
personal protective equipment
Risk Assessment
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
reference dose
Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study
reasonable maximally exposed individual
Record of Decision
rock quality determination
Revised Statutes, Annotated
Site Characterization Summary
Safe Drinking Water Act
Secondary Maximum Contaminant Level
sulfur dioxide
soil vapor extraction
to be considered
trichloroethene
trichlorofluoromethane
toxicity, mobility, or volume
total petroleum hydrocarbons
Technical Review Committee
Toxic Substances Control Act
treatment, storage, and disposal
underground injection control
Upper Sand
underground storage tank
wellhead protection areas
APPENDIX A
TABLES
APPENDIX B
ARARS FOR
PEASE AFB
APPENDIX B
ARARs FOR SITE 34
2.2
ENVIRONMENTAL AND PUBLIC HEALTH APPLICABLE OR RELEVANT AND APPROPRIATE REQUIREMENTS
SARA and the NCP, revised 8 March 1990 [40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 300], provide that the
development and evaluation of remedial actions under CERCLA must include a comparison of alternative site
responses to federal and state environmental and public health ARARs. The following subsections present and
discuss ARARs and other to be considered (TBC) criteria that may affect remediation at Site 34. A list of
ARARs appropriate to the preferred alternative selected for detailed evaluation at Site 34 is presented in
Table 11, in Appendix B.
2.2.1
Identification of ARARs
Identification of ARARs must be performed on a site-specific basis. NCP and SARA do not provide universal
standards for determining whether a particular remedial action will produce an adequate remedy at a
particular site. Rather, the process recognizes that each site has unique characteristics that must be
evaluated and compared to those requirements that apply under the given circumstances. ARARs are defined as
follows:
•
Applicable requirements are those cleanup standards, standards of control, and other substantive
environmental protection requirements, criteria, or limitations promulgated under federal, state, or
local laws that specifically address a hazardous substance, pollutant, contaminant, remedial action,
location, or other circumstance found at a CERCLA site.
•
Relevant and appropriate requirements are those cleanup standards, standards of control, and other
substantive environmental protection requirements, criteria, or limitations promulgated under
federal, state, or local laws that, while not "applicable" to a hazardous substance, pollutant,
contaminant, remedial action, location, or other circumstance at a CERCLA site, address problems or
situations sufficiently similar to those encountered at a CERCLA site.
•
TBC information refers to other federal and state criteria, advisories, guidance, and proposed
standards and local ordinances that are not legally binding, but that may provide useful information
or recommended procedures.
ARARs may be divided into the following categories:
•
Chemical-specific requirements are health- or risk-based concentration limits or ranges in various
environmental media for specific hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants. These limits may
take the form of action levels or discharge levels.
•
Location-specific requirements are restrictions on activities based on the characteristics of a site
or its immediate environment. An example is restrictions on wetlands development.
•
Action-specific requirements are controls or restrictions on particular types of activities in related
areas such as hazardous waste management or wastewater treatment. An example is Resource Conservation
and Recovery Act (RCRA) incineration standards. Because such requirements are triggered by the
particular remedial alternative action considered, and the FS evaluates a wide range of alternative
actions, many different action-specific requirements may be applicable.
The chemical-, location-, and action-specific ARARs for Site 34 are summarized in Table 2.2-1.
2.2.2
Chemical-Specific ARARs
Chemical-specific requirements "set health- or risk-based concentration limits or discharge limitations in
various environmental media for specific hazardous substances, pollutants, or contaminants" (52 FR 32496).
These requirements generally set protective cleanup levels for the chemicals of concern in the designated
media, or indicate a safe level of release that may be incorporated into a remedial activity.
Clean Water Act
The provisions of CERCLA Section 121 state that remedial actions shall attain federal water quality criteria
where they are relevant and appropriate. Federal water quality criteria documents have been published for 65
pollutants or groups of pollutants listed as toxic under the CWA. These criteria are unenforceable TBC
guidelines that may be used by states to set surface water quality standards. Although these criteria were
intended to represent a reasonable estimate of pollutant concentrations consistent with the maintenance of
designated water uses, states may appropriately modify these values to reflect local conditions.
The water quality criteria are generally represented in categories that are aligned with different surface
water use designations. Most aquatic life that exhibits levels below specified concentrations is protected
against acute or chronic effects (24-hour average). Specific criteria have not been established for many
chemical compounds because of insufficient data. Table 2.2-2 provides the most recent water quality criteria
for the protection of aquatic life and human health.
Clean Air Act
The CAA was enacted to protect and enhance the quality of air resources to protect public health and welfare.
The CAA is intended to initiate and accelerate national research and development programs to achieve the
prevention and control of air pollution. Under the CAA, federal agencies are to provide technical and
financial assistance to state and local governments for the development and execution of their air pollution
programs. EPA is the administrator of the CAA and has the responsibility to meet CAA objectives. CAA
requirements are potentially applicable to remedial actions that result in air emissions, such as excavation,
landfilling, and treatment activities. National Ambient Air Quality Standards are listed in Table 2.2-3.
State of New Hampshire Regulations
Groundwater
Draft New Hampshire Code of Administrative Rules (NHCAR) and Env-Ws 410 Protection of Groundwater, have been
developed and the NHCAR is under the public comment period. The NHCAR rules are not yet enforceable, and
EnvWs 410 has been officially adopted and is enforceable, the State of New Hampshire Department of
Environmental Services (NHDES) has consistently applied the requirements set forth in these proposed rules
and, as such, they are TBCs and ARARs, respectively. The chemical-specific requirements of these rules are
discussed in Env-Ws 410.03, Groundwater Quality Criteria, and are presented as follows:
•
No person shall cause groundwater quality to be altered in any way that would make groundwater
unsuitable for use as a source of drinking water.
•
No person shall cause groundwater to contain any regulated contaminant at concentrations above the
groundwater quality standards adopted under the New Hampshire Revised Statutes, Annotated
(RSA)485-C:6.
•
Prior to the adoption of specific groundwater quality standards, no person shall cause groundwater to
contain any regulated contaminant in a concentration above the maximum contaminant level established
in Env-Ws 310 through 319, or above health advisory levels issued by EPA or the New Hampshire Division
of Public Health Services.
•
No person shall cause groundwater to exceed surface water quality standards, as established in RSA
485-A and Env-Ws 430 through Env-Ws 439, at a point of discharge of groundwater to the surface water
body.
•
No person shall cause degradation of groundwater that results in a violation of surface water quality
standards, as established in RSA 485-A and Env-Ws 430 through Env-Ws 439, in any surface water body.
Table 2.2-4 presents State of New Hampshire MCLs and MCLGs established in Env-Ws 310 to 319, Drinking Water
Quality Standards as well as the advisory levels established by the New Hampshire Division of Public Health
and Services (NHDPHS). Regulated SMCLs (established primarily for aesthetic purposes) in Env-Ws 319 are also
presented in Table 2.2-4 and will be considered in selecting site-specific groundwater cleanup goals.
The aforementioned requirements would apply to new discharges to groundwater outside a Groundwater Management
Zone (Env-Ws 410.26), but would not apply to discharges to the groundwater within the capture zone of a
groundwater extraction and treatment system associated with remediation of contaminated groundwater under a
groundwater monitoring permit. Further discussion of Env-Ws 410, including the state's policy for dealing
with sites where groundwater has been contaminated by past discharges (Groundwater Management Zone Policy),
is presented in Subsection 2.2.4.
Wastewater to POTW
NHCAR Env-Ws 900, Part 904, has established pretreatment standards and guidelines for wastes that are
discharged to a publicly owned treatment works (POTW).
Air Emissions
NHCAR Env-A 300, Parts 303 and 304, have established primary and secondary ambient air quality standards
(equivalent to federal standards). These requirements are listed in Table 2.2-3 and are summarized as
follows:
(a)
•
Particulate Matter
The annual arithmetic mean for particulate matter shall not exceed 50 ug/m[3].
The maximum 24-hour average concentration for particulate matter shall not exceed 150 ug/m[3].
•
(b)
Sulfur Dioxide
•
The annual arithmetic mean for sulfur dioxide shall not exceed 0.030 ppm or 80 ug/m[3].
•
The maximum 24-hour concentration shall not exceed 0.14ppm or 365 ug/m[3] more than once per year.
•
For secondary standards, the maximum 3-hour concentration shall not exceed 0.5 ppm or 1,300 ug/m[3]
more than once per year.
(c)
Carbon Monoxide
•
The maximum 8-hour concentration shall not exceed 9 ppm or 10 mg/m[3] more than once per year.
•
The maximum 1-hour concentration shall not exceed 35 ppm or 40 mg/m[3] more than once per year.
(d)
Nitrogen Dioxide
•
(e)
For primary and secondary standards, the annual arithmetic mean for nitrogen dioxide shall not exceed
0.05 ppm or 100 ug/m[3].
Ozone
•
(f)
For primary and secondary standards, the maximum 1-hour average concentration of ozone shall not
exceed 0.12 ppm or 235 ug/m[3].
Hydrocarbons
In order to achieve primary and secondary standards, the maximum 3 consecutive hour concentration,
from 6:00 a.m. through 9:00 a.m., of nonmethane hydrocarbons shall not exceed 0.24 ppm or 160 ug/m[3]
more than once per year.
•
(g)
Lead
•
In order to achieve primary and secondary standards, the maximum arithmetic mean averaged over a
calendar quarter shall not exceed 1.5 ug/m[3].
NHCAR Env-A, Part 1303, identifies toxic air pollutants to be regulated. These pollutants are also listed by
EPA in 40 CFR 61. Toxic ambient air limits (AALs) established for some of the chemicals detected at Site 34
are listed in Table 2.2-3.
NHCAR Env-A, Chapters 600, 1000, and 1200, have established standards for the release of air emissions,
including VOCs and hazardous air pollutants. Applicable standards include the most stringent of the following
requirements:
•
New Source Performance Standards (40 CFR 60).
•
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants (40 CFR 61).
•
New Hampshire State Implementation Plan Limits.
See RSA 125-C:6, NHCAR Env-A 101.09, and Env-A 606.01. Remedial action may be necessary to prevent
unpermitted air emissions from the site, including volatilization of soil contaminants, during remedial
activities.
2.2.3
Location-Specific ARARs
Location-specific requirements "set restrictions on activities depending on the characteristics of a site or
its immediate environs" (52 FR 32496). In determining the use of these location-specific ARARS to select
remedial actions for CERCLA sites, one must investigate the jurisdictional prerequisites of each of the
regulations. Basic definitions, exemptions, etc., should be analyzed on a site-specific basis to confirm the
correct application of the requirements. A description of Site 34 and its immediate environs is contained in
Section 1.
Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act
The purposes of the FWCA are to conserve and promote conservation of fish and wildlife and their habitats.
The FWCA pertains to activities that modify a stream or river and affect fish or wildlife. Actions must be
taken to protect those fish and wildlife resources affected by site activities.
State of New Hampshire Requirements
Wetlands Impact
RSA 485-A:17 and Env-Ws 415 establish criteria for conducting any activity in or near state surface waters
that significantly alters terrain or may otherwise adversely affect water quality, impede natural runoff, or
create unnatural runoff. Activities within the scope of these provisions include excavation, dredging,
filling, mining, and grading of topsoil in or near wetlands areas. Remedial activities near or adjacent to
wetlands or surface water must comply with these criteria for the protection of state surface waters.
RSA 482-A and (Env-Wt) 300 to 400, 600, and 700 regulate filling and other activities in or adjacent to
wetlands, and establish criteria for the protection of wetlands from adverse effects on fish, wildlife,
commerce, and public recreation. Remedial activities in wetlands located in or adjacent to the site must
comply with these wetlands protection requirements.
Wellhead Protection Program
The New Hampshire Wellhead Protection Program, instituted under RSA 485:48 of the New Hampshire
Administrative Code, has been approved by the Council on Resources and Development and EPA.
Under the program, wellhead protection areas (WHPAs) for public wells (private homeowner wells are not
included in this program) will be delineated and potential groundwater contamination sources (PCSs) within
those areas will be identified and managed. The state's program for managing PCSs will include educating
industry personnel on management and handling practices that reduce the risk of groundwater contamination.
These practices are called Best Management Practices (BMPs). Management inspections will be performed
periodically at each identified operation in a WHPA to ensure that BMPs are being used. Rules for these BMPs
and the authority to enforce them at the state and local levels are proposed under a draft groundwater
classification system for the state. Additional regulatory and nonregulatory tools are available to local
governments for the management of PCSs in WHPAs; guidance on these will be made available through the Office
of State Planning.
2.2.4
Action-Specific ARARs
Action-specific ARARs are technology- or activity-based requirements or limitations on actions taken with
respect to hazardous wastes. These requirements are triggered by the particular remedial activities that are
selected to accomplish an alternative. Since there are usually several alternative actions for any remedial
site, different requirements can come into play. These action-specific requirements do not in themselves
determine the remedial alternative; rather, they affect how a selected alternative must be achieved.
The distinction between substantive requirements and administrative requirements at a CERCLA site is
important when reviewing different action alternatives. Substantive requirements pertain directly to actions
or conditions in the environment while administrative requirements pertain to permits that facilitate
implementation of a requirement. At CERCLA sites, actions taken on-site are exempt from the administrative
requirements. For example, discharge to an on-site stream would be exempt from permit requirements, but
discharge to a POTW would not be exempt.
Wetlands Protection
Through Executive Order No. 11990, regulations regarding protection of wetlands were promulgated by EPA under
40 CFR 6.302. As wetlands areas exist at Site 34, the following action-specific regulatory requirements
represent potential ARARs:
•
Avoid adverse impacts associated with the destruction or loss of wetlands.
•
Avoid new construction on wetlands unless no other practicable alternative exists.
•
Prepare a wetlands assessment if wetlands will be affected.
•
Minimize adverse impacts on wetlands if no practicable alternative to the action exists.
Hazardous Materials Transportation Act
Through the Hazardous Materials Transportation Act (49 USC 1801 to 1813), regulations regarding the
transportation of hazardous materials were promulgated by the Department of Transportation (DOT) under 49 CFR
107 and 171 to 177. If transportation of DOT-defined hazardous materials off-site is a potential remedial
action at Site 34, the following action-specific regulatory requirements represent potential ARARs:
•
Hazardous materials table (49 CFR 172.101).
•
Required manifest information (49 CFR 172.101, 172.203, and 173).
•
Transportation mode requirements (49 CFR 172.101 and 174 to 177).
•
Packaging, labeling, and marking requirements (49 CFR 172, 178, and 179).
•
Transportation placarding requirements (49 CFR 172, Subpart F).
Occupational Safety and Health Act
The Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA) (29 USCA 651) resulted in creation of the Occupational Safety
and Health Administration to protect worker safety and to administer regulatory control for worker safety.
Under OSHA, general industry standards have been promulgated under 29 CFR 1910. The action-specific
requirements given under 29 CFR 1910.120, Hazardous Waste Operations and Emergency Response, may apply to
remedial activities at Site 34.
Clean Water Act
CWA regulations establish effluent standards for point source discharges as follows:
•
Direct discharge to a surface water is governed by the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
(NPDES) permitting requirements (Section 402 of the CWA). Specific permitting requirements are
contained under 40 CFR 125, while specific effluent guidelines and standards are given in 40 CFR 401.
It should be noted that no categorical effluent guidelines or standards have been established for
hazardous waste sites. It should be noted, however, that standards established in 40 CFR 403.6 for
various industrial uses may be indirectly applicable to hazardous waste site operations if the types
of technologies employed during remediation are similar to the processes used in the regulated
industry.
•
Indirect discharge to a POTW is governed by pretreatment regulations [Section 307(b) of the CWA].
National pretreatment standards are addressed under 40 CFR 403. The standards specifically prohibit
discharge of the following items (40 CFR 403.5):
•
•
•
•
•
•
Ignitable or explosive wastewater.
Reactive or toxic fume-generating wastewater.
Used oil.
Solvent waste.
Pollutants that pass through the POTW without treatment, interfere with POTW operations,
contaminate POTW sludge, or endanger the health or safety of POTW workers.
Transported pollutants, except at points designated by the POTW.
NPDES discharge limitations are based on meeting the following criteria:
•
Location-specific, federally approved state water quality standards (40 CFR 122.44 and 131.40).
•
Action-specific best available technology (BAT) economically achievable requirements to control toxic
and nonconventional pollutants and best conventional technology (BCT) requirements to control
conventional pollutants [40 CFR 122.44(a)]. However, technology-based limitations may be determined on
a caseby-case basis.
Compliance with established limitations is based on discharge monitoring of pollutant mass, effluent volume,
and frequency of discharge (40 CFR 122.41). Approved sampling and test methods must be used for monitoring
(40 CFR 136.1 to 136.4). Discharge of CERCLA waste waters to a POTW would constitute an off-site activity
and, thus, is subject to all permitting requirements and local pretreatment requirements. When considering
discharge of CERCLA waste waters to a POTW, the POTW's record of compliance with its NPDES permit and
pretreatment program requirements must be assessed to determine whether the POTW is a suitable disposal site
for CERCLA wastewater.
EPA's Groundwater Protection Strategy for the 1990s
In July 1989, EPA established a Groundwater Task Force to review EPA's groundwater protection programs and to
develop concrete principles and objectives to ensure effective and consistent decision making in all
EPAactivities affecting the resource. The outcome of this effort is a report entitled, Protecting the
Nation's Groundwater: EPA's Strategy for the 1990s. Since this policy is intended to direct the course of
EPA's efforts in the coming years, it has the potential to significantly affect any action taken to remedy
contaminated groundwater at Pease AFB, which in turn may impact groundwater and source area remediation at
Site 34. Specific components of this policy that may significantly affect groundwater remediation at Pease
AFB are summarized as follows:
EPA's Groundwater Protection Principles
•
The overall goal of EPA's groundwater policy is to prevent adverse effects on human health and the
environment and to protect the environmental integrity of the nation's groundwater resources.
•
In determining appropriate prevention and protection strategies, EPA will also consider the use,
value, and vulnerability of the resource, as well as social and economic values. Thus, in decision
making, EPA must take a realistic approach to restoration based on actual and reasonably expected uses
of the resource as well as social and economic values.
•
The primary responsibility for coordinating and implementing groundwater protection programs has
always been and should continue to be vested with the states. An effective groundwater protection
program should link federal, state, and local activities in a coherent and coordinated plan of action.
EPA's Policy on Use of Quality Standards in Groundwater Protection and
Remediation Activities
•
MCLs under the SDWA will be used as reference points for water resource protection efforts when the
groundwater in question is a potential source of drinking water.
•
When MCLs are not available, EPA Health Advisory numbers or other approved health-based levels are
recommended as points of reference.
•
Water quality standards under the CWA will be used as reference points when groundwater is closely
connected hydrologically to surface water ecological systems.
•
In certain cases, MCLGs under the SDWA, or background levels, may be used in order to comply with
federal statutory requirements.
•
In general, remediation will attempt to achieve a total lifetime cancer risk level in the range of
10[-4] to 10[-6] and exposures to noncarcinogens below appropriate reference doses. More stringent
measures may be selected based on such factors as the cumulative effect of multiple contaminants,
exposure from other pathways, and unusual population sensitivities. Less stringent measures than the
reference point may be selected where authorized by law based on such factors as technological
practicality, adverse environmental impacts of remediation measures, cost, and low likelihood of
potential use.
Clean Air Act
The CAA (42 USC 7401 et seq.) mandates EPA to establish regulations to protect ambient air quality. As such,
it may be applied as an ARAR to Site 34 for remedial actions that potentially result in air emissions.
Under the CAA, three areas were identified for regulation:
•
Establishment of National Ambient Air Quality Standards (NAAQS).
•
Establishment of maximum emission standards as expressed under the National Emission Standards for
Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP).
•
Establishment of maximum emission standards as expressed under the New Source Performance Standards
(NSPS).
NAAQS and NESHAP represent chemical-specific requirements (see Table 2.2-3). The NSPS contain action-specific
requirements.
The CAA was amended in 1990; however, most of the final rules to support this amendment have not yet been
issued. It is expected that the new rules will include expanded permit requirements and maximum available
control technologies for hazardous waste facilities.
State of New Hampshire Regulations
Hazardous Waste Regulations
The hazardous waste rules for the State of New Hampshire are presented in the NHCAR, Subtitle Env-Wm. These
rules establish a hazardous waste permit program and a mechanism for monitoring hazardous wastes subject to
other regulatory programs, such as NPDES.
A waste is considered hazardous by NHDES if it is listed in Env-Wm 400 of the Hazardous Waste Rules or is
listed in 40 CFR 261. A waste also may be considered hazardous if it exhibits any of the ignitability,
corrosiveness, reactivity, or TCLP characteristics set forth in 40 CFR 261.
These provisions establish standards applicable to the identification, listing, and delisting of hazardous
waste; permitting; inspection; enforcement; and recycling requirements. These rules also set requirements
for owners and operators of hazardous waste facilities, and transporters and generators of hazardous waste.
These regulations may be applicable or relevant and appropriate for remedial activities at Site 34. Any
activity involving handling or moving a waste or soil and debris determined to be hazardous may involve
Env-Wm Hazardous Waste Rules.
Solid Waste Requirements
State of New Hampshire requirements for solid waste management are
Rules. NHCAR Env-Wm 100 to 320 and 2100 to 2800. These provisions
treatment, storage, and disposal of solid waste and the closure of
waste on-site must be managed, stored, treated, and disposed of in
Act and the rules there under.
contained in the New Hampshire Solid Waste
establish standards applicable to the
solid waste facilities. Nonhazardous solid
accordance with the Solid Waste Management
Underground Storage Tank Requirements
State of New Hampshire requirements for the installation, permitting, testing, operation, maintenance, and
closure of USTs are contained in the NHCAR, Env-Ws 411, General Requirements for Tanks at Underground Storage
Facilities. These regulations outline procedures and requirements for management of underground storage
facilities, including the following:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Facility Registration (Env-Ws 411.04).
Permit to Operate (Env-Ws 411.07).
Transfer of Facility Ownership (Env-Ws 411.08).
Inventory Monitoring (Env-Ws 411.11).
Tank Tightness Testing (Env-Ws 411.13).
Spill/Overfill Protection (Env-Ws 411.25).
Release Detection for Tanks Without Secondary Containment and Leak Monitoring (Env-Ws 411.29).
Corrosion Protection for Steel Tanks (Env-Ws 411.32).
Permanent Closure (Env-Ws 411.18).
Secondary Containment for New Tanks (Env-Ws 411.23).
These regulations apply to tanks with capacities greater than 110 gallons that store regulated substances,
including motor fuels, heating oils, lubricating oils, other petroleum products, and petroleum-contaminated
liquids and hazardous substances. These regulations would apply to the JP-4 and oil/water underground tanks
at Site 34. If remediation activities at the site involve testing, retrofitting, or removal of USTs, these
activities will be executed in accordance with the aforementioned requirements.
The State of New Hampshire has also developed a guidance document entitled, Interim Policy for the Management
of Soils Contaminated from Spills/Releases of Virgin Petroleum Products (NHDES Virgin Petroleum Products
Policy). This policy identifies options for treatment, current analytical methods, and remediation goals for
virgin petroleum-contaminated soils. Remediation of soils at Site 34 that have been contaminated by virgin
petroleum products will be handled in accordance with this policy.
Remediation goals established for virgin petroleum-contaminated soil are as follows:
Gasoline
•
•
Benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylene (BTEX) - 1.0 ppm.
Total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPHs) - 10.0 ppm.
Diesel fuel or other fuel oils
•
•
BTEX - 1.0 ppm.
TPHs - 100.0 ppm.
According to NHDES, remediation goals for soil contaminated with JP-4 would be the same as those presented
for diesel and other fuel oils. Currently, NHDES does not have a formal policy for the handling of soils
contaminated by hazardous wastes or waste oils resulting from the operation of underground storage systems.
These materials will be dealt with in a future NHDES policy document.
Groundwater
As previously indicated, the State of New Hampshire has adopted Groundwater Protection Rules (Env-Ws 410).
These rules present the state's policies and procedures for dealing with new discharges of contaminants to
groundwater and to groundwater already contaminated by past discharges.
Air Emissions
The air emissions requirements of the State of New Hampshire are summarized as follows:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Demonstrating Conformance (Env-A 101.26).
Testing and Monitoring Procedures (Env-A 800.07 and 800.09).
Malfunctions/Breakdowns of Air Pollution Control Equipment (Env-A 902).
Fugitive Dust Emission Control (Env-A 1002).
Incinerator Emission Standards (Env-A 1201).
Control of VOC Emissions (Env-A 1204).
Impact Analysis and Permit Requirement (Env-A 1305).
Toxic Air Pollutants (Env-A 1300).
Water Resources
Water resource requirements of the State of New Hampshire are as follows:
•
Water Use Registration - Env-Wr 700, Part 701. Users of 20,000 gallons of water or more per day over
7 days or 600,000 gallons over 30 days must register with the Water Resources Division. Water flow
measurements are defined in Part 702. Remedial activities involving the use of these quantities of
water must comply with the requirements of this section.
Safety
Relevant safety requirements promulgated by the State of New Hampshire include the New Hampshire Department
of Safety Rules for Transport of Hazardous Materials (Safety Ch. 600). These regulations govern the
transport of hazardous materials and wastes. They must be complied with when removal action requires
off-site transportation of hazardous waste.
Water Discharge Requirements
The water discharge requirements of the State of New Hampshire are summarized as follows:
•
New Hampshire Industrial and Municipal Wastewater Discharge Permits (Env-Ws 403).
•
Pretreatment Standards (Env-Ws 904).
APPENDIX C
DECLARATION OF CONCURRENCE
State of New Hampshire
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
6 Hazen Drive, P.O. Box 95, Concord, NH 03302-0095
603-271-3503 FAX 603-271-2867
TDD Access: Relay NH 1-800-735-2964
September 14, 1993
Mr. Alan P. Babbitt
Deputy for Hazardous Materials and Waste;
Deputy Assistant Secretary of the Air Force
(Environment, Safety and Occupational Health)
Suite 5C866, Pentagon
Washington, D.C. 20330-1660
RE: Site 34 Source Area Record of Decision
Pease Air Force Base Superfund Site
Pease Air Force Base, New Hampshire
Subject:
Declaration of Concurrence
Dear Mr. Babbitt:
The New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services (NHDES) has reviewed the September 1993 Record of
Decision (ROD) regarding Source Area Remedial Action at Site 34 - the Jet Engine Test Cell at the Pease Air
Force Base Superfund Site located in Newington and Portsmouth, New Hampshire. The intent of the source
control action is to reduce the potential lea groundwater, surface water and sediment contamination will be
addressed in the Zone 3 ROD.
A description of the source control actions, together with NHDES' position follows:
I.
Excavation of contaminated soil from the JP-4 Tank Area, the Fuel Oil Tank/Waste Fuel Separator Area,
the manhole area and holding tanks area, and transport to an approved off-site treatment/disposal
facility. The final volume of soil to be removed will be determined at the time of remediation using
field screening techniques. Removal of USTs and drain piping from the manhole to the Test Cell Ditch
will also be incorporated into the source control action.
As noted in the NHDES, "Interim Policy for the Management of Soils contaminated from Spills/Releases of
Virgin Petroleum Products", soil excavation and treatment is one of many appropriate remedial methods which
minimizes transfer of contaminants from one environmental medium to another. Treatment in a thermal
desorption process system, treatment and resource recovery at a NHDES permitted asphalt batch plant, as well
as, disposal in a specifically authorized RCRA Subtitle D Landfill or RCRA facility are accepted methods for
processing virgin petroleum contaminated soils. Field screening of the excavation will be conducted in
accordance with Section VII -Sampling and Analysis Protocols of the NHDES Policy on Virgin Petroleum
Contaminated Soils. Any wetlands adversely impacted by the source control action will be restored, subject
to the provisions of RSA 482-A and Env-Wt 100 through Wt 800.
II.
Dewatering of the site during soil excavation and treatment of the extracted groundwater at the
existing on-site treatment facility, with subsequent discharge to the base sanitary sewer.
The discharge of treated groundwater from the Pilot Groundwater Treatment Plant to the base sewer will
require the development of discharge limits in coordination with the City of Portsmouth (operator of the base
wastewater treatment plant) in order to ensure compliance with the existing National
Pollution Discharge Elimination System permit, pretreatment regulations and
water pollution control laws.
III.
Environmental monitoring:
Long-term monitoring will be necessary in order to determine the effectiveness of the source control action.
Water quality monitoring is determined on a site specific basis and will be addressed in the Zone 3 ROD.
Frequency and location of water quality monitoring is typically required on a tri-annual basis until a
baseline condition is established. A comprehensive, detailed review will be conducted by the Air Force, the
USEPA and the NHDES within five years after remediation to ensure the remedy provided adequate protection of
human health and the environment.
Based upon its review, NHDES has determined the source area remedial action to be consistent with applicable
or relevant and appropriate state requirements and policies. NHDES, as a party to the Pease Air Force Base
Federal Facility Agreement, and acting as agent for the State of New Hampshire, concurs with the selected
remedial action.
Sincerely,
Robert W. Varney
Commissioner
cc: Philip J. O'Brien, Ph.D., Director, NHDES-WMD
Carl W. Baxter, P.E., NHDES-WMEB
Richard H. Pease, P.E., NHDES-WMEB
Martha A. Moore, Esq., NHDOJ-PDA
Michael J. Daly, EPA
Arthur L. Ditto, P.E., AFBDA
James Snyder, AFCEE
PEASE AIR FORCE BASE
Site Information:
Site Name:
Address:
PEASE AIR FORCE BASE
PORTSMOUTH/NEWINGTON, NH
EPA ID:
EPA Region:
NH7570024847
01
Site Alias Name(s):
US AIR FORCE PEASE AFB
13 IDENTIFIED WASTE AREAS
Record of Decision (ROD):
ROD Date:
Operable Unit:
ROD ID:
09/30/1994
09
EPA/ROD/R01-94/094
Media:
soil, groundwater
Contaminant:
JP-4 fuel, oils, solvents, construction wastes
Abstract:
Please note that the text in this document summarizes the Record of
Decision for the purposes of facilitating searching and retrieving key
text on the ROD. It is not the officially approved abstract drafted by
the EPA Regional offices. Once EPA Headquarters receives the
official abstract, this text will be replaced.
The 4,365-acre Pease Air Force Base, Sites 8, 9 and 11, site is
located in the Towns of Newington and Greenland and in the City of
Portsmouth, in Rockingham County, New Hampshire. Pickering
Brook is the primary surface water pathway that carries runoff away
from the site toward the Piscataqua River. In addition to Pickering
Brook, several wetlands area exist northeast of site 11. Peverly
Brook, an approximate 10-acre emergent wetlands, is located west of
Site 9. Groundwater occurs in both the bedrock and overlying
unconsolidated deposits at Pease AFB. The bedrock in the vicinity of
Pease AFB is composed of metamorphosed sedimentary, volcanic,
and intrusive igneous rocks of the Proterozoic to lower Ordovician
age Merrimac Group. This group includes the Kittery and Eliot
Formations, which are variably composed of quartzite, phyllite, and
metagraywacke. Land uses at Pease AFB since its closure on 31
March 1991 include industrial/commercial, military, and a wildlife
refuge. Land use in areas immediately surrounding the site varies.
Sites 9 and 11 are bounded by the runway and Taxiway D to the
south and southeast, and by undeveloped forested land to the
northeast. The site was used between 1956 and 1991 and is currently
inactive. There are approximately 3,700 dwellings within a 1-mile
radius of Pease AFB.
Site 9 (Construction Rubble Dump 1) served as a soil borrow area
and disposal site for construction debris, including concrete, asphalt,
wood, tree stumps, brush, and scrap metal. Phase I records indicate
that disposal of construction debris in the area began in 1958;
however, there is no evidence of this type of disposal in the 1960 or
1962 aerial photographs. The 1974 and 1987 aerial photographs
show a small circular excavation pit on the site. Currently, Site 9 is
not in use.
A taxiway and north ramp of the flightline form the southwestern and
southeastern boundaries of the Site 11 (Fuel Maintenance Squadron)
area of investigation. The site was chosen based on evidence of
stressed vegetation, organic vapors detected in the surface soil, and
disturbed areas. The Phase I study suggested that, prior to 1971,
solvents used to remove the protective cosmoline coating from new
aircraft parts may have been intermittently disposed of at the site.
Site 8 was active as a fire training area from 1961 to 1988. The
majority of the fire training exercises were performed in a large
circular pit area located in the southeastern portion of the site. Small
and large aircraft crash fires were simulated using approximately 200
and 500 to 1,000 gallons of JP-4 fuel, respectively.
Prior to 1971, mixed waste oils, solvents, and fuels were collected
from drums and bowers located across the base and transported to
Site 8 as the main method of disposal. The pit area was first
presaturated with water, and then the waste oils, solvents, and fuel
were poured on top of the water and onto mock aircraft. The mixture
was allowed to burn for 1 to 2 minutes and was extinguished using
an aqueous film-forming foam. During the mid 1970s, the practice of
mixing waste oils and solvents with fuel for training fires ceased, and
only JP-4 fuel was used.
The Stage I investigation, which began in 1984, was designed to
identify potential impacts of previous site activities and to investigate
potential soil contamination at Site 11. Stage 2 field work was
performed from October 1987 through May 1989. The primary
purposes of the Stage 2 investigation were to characterize the source
areas and to delineate the extent of contamination in the
groundwater. Stage 4 field work was conducted at Sites 9 and 11
from 1991 to 1993. The objectives of the Stage 4 activities were to
assess the extent of contamination in soil and groundwater to support
the risk assessment at Site 9 and to select additional soil and
groundwater samples at Site 11 to support a No Further Action
Decision Document.
This ROD presents the selected remedy at Sites 9 and 11. There were
no contaminant source materials identified at Sites 9 and 11, thus, no
further action is warranted under CERCLA.
Remedy:
The selected remedial action for this site is no further action because
the Baseline Risk Assessment has shown that risk-based levels are
not exceeded and the site poses no unacceptable risk to human health
and the environment.
Text:
Full-text ROD document follows on next page.
EPA/ROD/R01-94/094
1994
EPA Superfund
Record of Decision:
PEASE AIR FORCE BASE
EPA ID: NH7570024847
OU 09
PORTSMOUTH/NEWINGTON, NH
09/30/1994
Text:
DECLARATION
Site Name and Location:
Pease Air Force Base (AFB), Sites 9 and 11, New Hampshire
Statement of Basis and Purpose:
This document presents the no-action decision for Sites 9 and 11
Hampshire. Site 8 (Fire Department Training Area 2) (FDTA-2), wh
is addressed in a separate ROD and is not addressed in this Zone
This decision document was developed in accordance with the Compr
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act as amende
Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 (42 USC Subsection 960
National Contingency Plan (40 CFR Part 300). This decision docum
Administrative Record for the sites. The Administrative Record f
the Information Repository in Building 43 at Pease AFB, New Hamps
Administrative Record Index is presented in Appendix C.
The State of New Hampshire (NHDES) concurs with the selected reme
Description of the Selected Remedy:
No action.
Declaration Statement:
No actions are necessary to ensure the protection of human health
Sites 9 and 11, and no 5-year reviews are necessary. The foregoi
determination by the U.S. Air Force and the U.S. Enviromnental Pr
that no remedial action is necessary under CERCLA at Sites 9 and
Concur and recommended for immediate implementation:
U.S. Air Force
By: ________________________________________
______________________________
Alan K. Olsen
Director, Air Force Base Conversion Agency
Date:
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
By: ________________________________________
______________________________
John P. Devillars
Regional Administrator
Date:
RECORD OF DECISION SUMMARY
I.
SITE NAME, LOCATION, AND DESCRIPTION
Pease Air Force Base (AFB) is a National Priorities List (NPL) si
areas of contamination. This Record of Decision (ROD) presents t
actions for Site 9 (Construction Rubble Dump 1) (CRD-1) and Site
Squadron Equipment Cleaning Site) (FMS), both of which are locate
portion of Pease AFB in the area designated as Zone 5 at the nort
runway. Site 11 is located adjacent to the north ramp of the air
8 (Fire Department Training Area 2) (FDTA-2), which also is in Zo
a separate ROD and is not addressed in this Zone 5 (Sites 9 and 1
Sites 9 and 11 have been investigated under the U.S. Air Force In
Program (IRP). The results of the investigations indicate that r
required at Sites 9 and 11 to meet the requirements of the Compre
Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) (42 USC Subsec
as amended, and the National Contingency Plan (NCP) (40 CFR Part
The former Pease AFB is located in the Towns of Newington and Gre
of Portsmouth, in Rockingham County, New Hampshire. As shown in
is located on a peninsula in southeastern New Hampshire. The pen
west and southwest by Great Bay, on the northwest by Little Bay,
northeast by the Piscataqua River. The City of Portsmouth is loc
the base. Pease AFB occupies 4,365 acres and is located approxim
peninsula.
Land uses at Pease AFB since its closure on 31 March 1991 include
military, and a wildlife refuge. Land use in areas immediately s
Zone 5 (Sites 9 and 11) is bounded by the runway and Taxiway D to
southeast, and by undeveloped forested land to the northeast. Pi
within this forested land, flows off base to the north-northeast.
that drains south into Peverly Brook is located west of Site 9 (s
Sites 9 and 11 are not currently in use. The ultimate dispositio
has not yet been determined. It is assumed that residential, com
buildings will not be constructed on these sites because of their
airfield clear zone.
To the north and east of Zone 5 (Sites 9 and 11), the off-base la
residential. The Newington Town Forest is located in the norther
extends north of the base boundary into the Town of Newington. T
Garage is located on the western side of Nimble Hill Road and als
of the base boundary. Investigations were conducted off base at
in the vicinity of the Newington Cemetery, on Nimble Hill Road; a
used for the collection of bulk items for disposal, on Little Bay
properties belonging to Watson, Coleman, Harvey, Cross, Gilbert/P
and the Town of Newington. The locations of the off-base feature
5 are shown in Figure 3.
At the beginning of World War II, the U.S. Navy used an airport l
Pease AFB property. The Air Force assumed control of the site in
of the existing facility was completed in 1956. During its histo
home of the 100th Bombardment Wing and the 509th Bombardment Wing
was to maintain a combat-ready force capable of long-range bombar
time, various quantities of fuels, oils, solvents, lubricants, an
at the base, and releases of contaminants to the environment occu
The New Hampshire Air National Guard (NHANG) relocated the 157th
Group (MAG) from Grenier Field at Manchester, New Hampshire, to P
The mission of the group was changed in 1975, when it was designa
Refueling Group. In December 1988, Pease AFB was selected as one
<IMG SRC 0194094>
<IMG SRC 0194094A>
<IMG SRC 0194094B>
installations to be closed by the Secretary of Defense's Commissi
and Closure. The base was closed as an active military reservati
Air Force is retaining approximately 229 acres for use by NHANG.
of 1,054 acres has been passed from the Air Force to the Departme
Fish and Wildlife Service, for use as a National Wildlife Refuge.
transferred to the Pease Development Authority (PDA) a 1,702-acre
benefit transfer. This transfer occurred through a contract of s
lease in anticipation of a deeded transfer. PDA now operates the
flightline areas as a commercial airport.
There are approximately 3,700 dwellings within a 1-mile radius of
water usage surveys conducted in 1988 and 1992 and on available U
(USGS) and New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services (NH
it was determined that a number of these dwellings have wells and
their associated properties. The Town of Newington in particular
private wells. The majority of Portsmouth residences surveyed ar
only. A compilation of area springs and wells for Pease AFB, bas
available to date, is presented in the Pease AFB Off-Base Well In
(G-599) and in Appendix G of the Draft Final Zone 5 RI Report (Gmaps are provided as attachments to the letter report (G-599).
Pease AFB is located in the Piscataqua River drainage basin (see
radially away from the peninsula into Great Bay toward the west,
and north, and the Piscataqua River to the east. Little Bay flow
at the northern end of the peninsula. Great Bay, Little Bay, and
all tidally influenced. Consequently, these bodies of water are
level fluctuations.
Pickering Brook is the primary surface water pathway that carries
Zone 5 (Sites 9 and 11) area toward the Piscataqua River. The he
Brook are located in an extensive, forested wetlands area adjacen
point 8027. Pickering Brook flows off base approximately 1,500 f
joins Flagstone Brook to flow into the Piscataqua River. Before
Flagstone Brook, it joins with other small tributaries that flow
Point Road, which is northeast of Site 8. In addition to Pickeri
areas exist east of Site 8 and northeast of Site 11. The wetland
identified as Wetlands XII, are relatively extensive. East of Me
headwaters of Pickering Brook, Wetlands XIII surrounds the brook
Wetlands XIII is immediately adjacent to Flagstone Brook, and a p
Flagstone Brook near its conjunction with Merrimac Drive. Becaus
military installation, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (F
floodplains at the base. Therefore, it is not known whether Zone
within 100-year floodplain. There are no records indicating that
Pease AFB. In addition, Zone 5 (Sites 9 and 11) is the highest e
peninsula, suggesting that flooding is not likely.
Knights Brook is located north of Site 9, entirely outside of the
Knights Brook does not receive any runoff from Pease AFB. It beg
that merge and flow north to Little Bay. Near the origin of Knig
ranged from approximately 15 feet in a wetlands area to 1.3 feet
The water depths ranged from 1.5 to 4.5 inches, as measured in Ju
of aerial photographs and field reconnaissance surveys, Knights B
stream dominated by cattails throughout its length.
Peverly Brook begins as an approximate 10-acre, emergent wetlands
9. Peverly Brook flows toward the southwest and becomes channeli
passing through a culvert under Merrimac Drive. Downstream of th
McIntyre Road, Peverly Brook varies in width (from 0.9 to 2.5 fee
3 inches) until it discharges into Upper Peverly Pond located app
downstream.
Approximately 70 feet of relief exists across Zone 5 (Sites 9 and
highs, with elevations of approximately 122 feet above mean sea l
in the southeastern portion of Zone 5. Approximately 30 feet of
The land surface in the Site 9 area slopes from an elevation of a
to approximately 58 ft MSL near the wetlands located at the head
Plate 3 of the Draft Final Zone 5 RI Report) (G-635).
More information on the sites is presented in the Stage 3C Draft
Investigation (RI) Report (G-635).
II. SITE HISTORY AND ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES
A. Site 9 Use and Response History
Site 9 (CRD-1) served as a soil borrow area and disposal site for
including concrete, asphalt, wood, tree stumps, brush, and scrap
by Merrimac Drive to the south and the base boundary to the north
of the CRD-1 area is defined by the emergent wetlands that drain
Brook. The eastern border of CRD-1 runs northwest along the base
the Newington Town Garage. Since fall 1991, the area studied as
at CRD-1 has extended beyond the base boundary to an unpaved road
southeast of Little Bay Road. Figure 1 shows the location of CRD
Aerial photographs taken between 1943 and 1987 were reviewed to m
development of the CRD-1 area. Aerial photographs from 1943 show
CRD-1 area was wooded. By 1954, nearly all of the area had been
operations were being conducted in the western part of the site,
of the site was a field.
By 1960, sand and gravel borrow operations had begun in the north
where an excavated pit was observed (see Figure 4). Phase I reco
of construction debris in the area began in 1958; however, there
of disposal in the 1960 or 1962 aerial photographs. Aerial photo
that the CRD-1 area was receiving soil (see Figure 4). The pockm
part of CRD-1 appear as piles of soil when viewed through a stere
evidence of construction rubble in this photograph. The runway a
had been constructed, and is visible on the 1962 photograph.
The Site 9 area is not currently in use. In-place airport oprati
within the boundaries of the airport restrict construction of res
industrial buildings at the site because of its proximity to the
The 1974 aerial photograph shows an additional, small circular ex
Drive. In addition, rubble and soil piles were observed along th
edges of CRD-1, respectively.
By 1987, the excavated area was larger. Additional excavation ex
south and east. An additional small pit was present north of the
noted on the 1974 photograph. Construction rubble was observed o
eastern borders.
IRP investigations at CRD-1 began in 1983 and continued through N
Phase I investigation began in 1983 with a Problem Identification
Based on the results of that investigation, CRD-1 was recommended
These investigations and results are described in Subsection 4.1
FS Report (G-634).
B.
Site 11 Use and Response History
The northwestern boundary of the Site 11 (FMS) area of investigat
southeastern corner of Site 8. The northern border of Site 11 is
which extends southeast from Site 8. The northeastern border is
<IMG SRC 0194094C>
containing a wetlands. A taxiway and the north ramp of the fligh
and southeastern boundaries of the Site 11 area of investigation,
boundary was chosen based on evidence of stressed vegetation, org
the surface soil, and disturbed areas. Figure 1 shows the locati
FMS was originally established as an IRP site during the Phase I
in 1983 and 1984. The Phase I findings were based on a records r
interviews, and site inspections.
The Phase I study (G-84) suggested that, prior to 1971, solvents
protective cosmoline coating (a petroleum product used as a rust
aircraft parts may have been intermittently disposed of at this s
11 that were unvegetated or appeared to have stressed vegetation
potential disposal areas.
Aerial photographs dated 1952, 1960, and 1976 were reviewed in th
Technical Report No. 1 (G-530). These photographs and a set of a
1987 were re-examined to evaluate the Site 11 activities as part
The 1952 aerial photograph revealed that, prior to the initial Pe
1954, the land encompassing Site 11 was used for farming. Later
the area of alleged Site 11 activities had been sparsely vegetate
since 1960. Locations that were unvegetated or appeared to exhib
were observed in these later photographs; however, specific site
identified. Although the precise boundaries of the Site 11 could
cleared area of approximately 4.3 acres estimated from the 1960 p
a result of vegetative growth, to approximately 3.3 acres in 1976
a northwest-southeast-trending unpaved road crossed the site. In
more vegetative growth was noted, and the cleared area was limite
acres located along the unpaved road identified in the 1976 photo
The Site 11 area is not currently in use. In-place airport opera
within the boundaries of the airport restrict construction of res
industrial buildings at the site because of its proximity to the
C.
Sites 9 and 11 Activities
The IRP Phase I Problem Identification/Records Search (G-84) iden
as potential sources for the release of contaminants to the envir
finding, a presurvey was conducted to obtain sufficient informati
study. The presurvey was completed in 1984. Based on the presur
at Sites 9 and 11 in accordance with CERCLA, as amended; the NCP;
guidance, including EPA's Guidance for Conducting Remedial Invest
Studies Under CERCLA, Interim Final, October 1988, OSWER Directiv
other EPA guidance for conducting RI/FSs under CERCLA.
The Stage I investigation, which began in 1984, was designed to i
of previous site activities and to investigate potential soil con
water samples from Peverly Brook were collected and analyzed for
The results of those investigations are presented in the Phase II
Quantification, Stage 1 Final Report for Pease AFB (G-525), submi
Stage 2 field work was performed from October 1987 through May 19
purposes of the Stage 2 investigation were to characterize the so
accurately delineate the extent of contamination in the groundwat
investigations are described in detail in four Interim Technical
4) (G-530; G-531; G-536; G-537) and in the Stage 2 Draft Final Re
Base (G-533). Stage 2 activities also included soil-gas sampling
soils for contaminants and to select soil boring locations. Soil
advanced to characterize the lateral and vertical extent of poten
pits were excavated at Site 9 to characterize the types of buried
Stage 4 field work was conducted at Sites 9 and 11 from June 1991
The objectives of the Stage 4 activities were to assess the exten
groundwater to support the risk assessment at Site 9 and to selec
groundwater samples at Site 11 to support a No Further Action Dec
(NFADD). Most of the field activities for Sites 9 and 11 were co
Table 1 summarizes the Stage 4 activities. Activities conducted
1, 2, and 4 are described in detail in the Draft Final Zone 5 RI
D.
Enforcement History at Pease AFB
In 1976, the Department of Defense (DOD) devised a comprehensive
control migration of environmental contamination that may have re
operations and disposal practices at DOD facilities. In response
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) of 1976 and in anticipation
issued a Defense Environmental Quality Program Policy Memorandum
dated June 1980, requiring identification of past hazardous waste
agency installations. The program was revised by DEQPPM 81-5 (11
which reissued and amplified all previous directives and memorand
Pease AFB was proposed to be added to the NPL in 1989 and was lis
1990. On 24 April 1991, the Air Force, U.S. Environmental Protec
NHDES signed a Federal Facilities Agreement (FFA) establishing th
timetable for conducting the Remedial Investigation/Feasibility S
Pease AFB. As part of this timetable, the Air Force, in an effor
designed a basewide strategy plan for conducting an RI/FS. This
numerous sites into seven zones or operable units based on geogra
receptors, and potential future uses. RI/FS Reports were prepare
and 11 are addressed in the Draft Final Zone 5 RI and FS Reports
Table
Summary of Stage 4 Activi
Zone 5, Pease
Site No.
9
Date
6/91
Activity
Surface water, sediment, and benthic
Evaluate potential impact of CRD-1 on
sampling.
9
6/91
Monthly water level measurement.
Characterize overburden and bedrock
patterns.
9
wetlands boundaries.
9
7/91
Wetlands delineation.
7/91-
Very low-frequency (VLF)
8/91
electromagnetic (EM) and seismic
potential bedrock
migration pathways and
refraction geophysical surveys.
topography,
9
accurate boundary.
8/91
Wetlands survey.
9
9/91
Electrical earth resistivity (EER) and
vertical layers.
EM-34 geophysical surveys.
9
10/91
Exploratory soil borings and soil
Characterize soil quality and determine
sampling.
9
11/91Monitor bedrock and overburden
12/91
Overburden and bedrock well
9
11/91
locations and elevations.
Survey.
9
accurate locations and
Survey.
1/92
9
1/92
Characterize water quality of
installation.
Groundwater sampling.
wells.
9
4/92
Exploratory soil borings and soil
Characterize soil quality and determine
sampling.
9
8/92
Benthic invertebrate sampling
quality.
Table
Summary of Stage 4 Activi
Zone 5, Pease
(Continu
Site No.
9
accurate locations and
Date
8/92
9
9/92
overburden water-bearing unit
Activity
Survey.
Slug tests.
9
9/92Overburden monitor well and
Characterize overburden groundwater
10/92
piezometer installation.
9
11/92
Groundwater sampling.
Accurately characterize groundwater
new and older
9
accurate locations and
11/92
Survey.
9
groundwater quality;
5/93
Groundwater sampling.
9
6/93
Groundwater and surfacc water
Characterize groundwater and surface
sampling.
11
7/91
Monthly water level measurement.
Characterize overburden groundwater
11
8/91
Piezometer (groundwater) sampling.
Characterize overburden groundwater
11
Evaluate soil quality.
11/91
Exploratory soil borings and soil
sampling.
Table
Summary of Stage 4 Activi
Zone 5, Pease
(Continu
Site No.
Date
11
5/92
thickness of Glacial Till (GT);
Activity
Piezometer installation.
flow.
11
5/92
Sample groundwater from piezometer
Assess potential bedrock groundwater
7443 prior to development.
11
9/92
potential bedrock groundwater
Sample groundwater.
11
accurate locations and
Survey.
9/92
11
10/92
Confirmational sampling.
III.
Resample groundwater.
COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION
Throughout the recent history of Sites 9 and 11, there has been c
involvement. EPA, NHDES, and the Air Force have kept the communi
interested parties apprised of site activities through informatio
releases, Technical Review Committee meetings, and public meeting
In January 1991, the Air Force completed preparation of a communi
outlined a program to address community concerns and keep citizen
during remedial activities.
Numerous fact sheets have been released
AFB. These fact sheets are intended to
apprised of developments and milestones
to date that concern Sites 9 and 11 are
by the Air Force througho
keep the public and other
in the Pease AFB IRP. Th
summarized as follows:
Fact Sheet
Pease AFB Installation Restoration Program Update
Oc
Pease AFB Installation Restoration Program Update
De
Zone 5 Proposed Plan
Ja
In addition to the fact sheets, a number of public meetings have
remediation of Zone 5. On 14 November 1991, an IRP update public
and on 12 Janualy 1993, an IRP public workshop and meeting were c
the public with information on the status of the Pease AFB IRP.
Force conducted a public hearing and informational session for th
during which oral comments on the Proposed Plan were received. A
comments received during this meeting and the Air Force's respons
included in the responsiveness summary (see Appendix A). A full
the Administrative Record file at Pease AFB. Responses to writte
during this period also are included in Appendix A. In addition,
for the Proposed Plan was conducted between 26 January 1994 and 1
An Administrative Record containing documents and correspondence
Pease AFB IRP is located in Building 43 at Pease AFB. An index o
Record is maintained at EPA Region I in Boston, Massachusetts.
IV.
SCOPE AND ROLE OF OPERABLE UNIT OR RESPONSE ACTION
This ROD presents the selected remedy at Sites 9 and 11. Typical
Superfund sites involves activities to remove or isolate contamin
conjunction with activities that mitigate migration of contaminat
and/or surface water pathways.
Sites 9 and 11 have been investigated under the Air Force IRP beg
records search that identified the sites as areas of potential so
could be released to the environment. During Stages 1, 2, and 4,
analyses were performed to characterize surface and subsurface co
11 and their vicinity. The results of these investigations show
materials were identified at Sites 9 and 11.
The baseline risk assessment for Site 9 indicated that the cancer
resulting from incidental ingestion of, and dermal contact with,
or surface water (filtered and unfiltered) at the site did not ex
of 10-6 to 10-4, and the total hazard index for human receptors f
scenarios did not exceed EPA's benchmark of concern of 1. Both c
risks posed by bedrock groundwater were within acceptable ranges
compounds and either filtered or unfiltered (total) inorganic com
cancer risk posed by exposure to overburden groundwater (organic
compounds) from filtered groundwater samples was slightly greater
99% of this calculated risk was due to the presence of arsenic.
posed by arsenic in Site 9 overburden groundwater is lower than t
the current Maximum Contaminant Level (MCL). MCLs are enforceabl
based drinking water standards. The ecological risk assessment i
adverse health effects on ecological receptors resulting from inc
dermal contact with, soil, surface water, or sediment are expecte
The potential for contaminants to leach from soil into groundwate
receptor ingestion of, or direct contact with, contaminated water
This evaluation indicated that existing concentrations of chemica
soil, subsequent to leaching, would not result in groundwater con
groundwater Remedial Action Objectives (RAOs). RAOs are defined
conceptual goals of remedial actions, such as compliance with App
Appropriate Requirements (ARARs) or reducing risks.
A baseline risk assessment was prepared as part of the Site 11 NF
contaminant levels detected at the site pose unacceptable risks t
receptors. The results of the risk assessment indicated that soi
do not pose an unacceptable human health risk, or an unacceptable
risk.
In all media, for both sites, a comparison of site-specific chemi
regulatory criteria and/or background concentrations revealed tha
concentrations are within these criteria.
The concentrations of several metals from unfiltered groundwater
CRD-1 exceeded regulatory guidelines. These elevated levels are
sampling artifacts and are not representative of actual condition
EPA resampled four CRD-1 groundwater monitor wells using a low-fl
to confirm the actual metals concentrations at the site. The res
concentrations were well below regulatory guidelines. In additio
filtered groundwater samples from CRD-1 wells have consistently b
levels.
Based on this assessment, no further action at Sites 9 and 11 is
However, mitigation/elimination of potential physical hazards ass
construction debris at Site 9 will be performed under NHDES closu
construction debris landfills, independent of CERCLA.
V.
SUMMARY OF SITE CHARACTERISTICS
Section 1 of the Draft Final Zone 5 RI Report (G-635) contains an
activities conducted at Sites 9 and 11. Based on the results of
model was developed that incorporates all available data concerni
vicinity, including geological, hydrological, and analytical data
photographs; and visual observations. The salient points of the
follows:
Unsaturated overburden conditions exist in the vicin
between Sites 8 and 9.
A component of Site 8 overburden groundwater flows w
toward the bedrock ridge.
The overburden is saturated approximately 100 feet w
In the vicinity of the cemetery, bedrock groundwater
concentrations of cis-1,2-dichloroethene (cis-1,2-DC
overburden.
No volatile organic compounds (VOCs) were detected i
samples collected from the overburden piezometers lo
the cemetery.
A topographic low at Site 9 serves as a local rechar
Two overburden water-bearing units [Upper Sand (US)
are present across much of Site 9. Groundwater flow
is predominantly to the west, toward the wetlands; h
portion of the site, a portion of the groundwater in
toward the northwest.
At Site 9, a downward vertical gradient exists betwe
bearing units, although the hydrologic interconnecti
limited by the low-permeability Marine Clay and Silt
Groundwater in the US unit discharges to the wetland
Boiling Spring, located west of Site 9.
There does not appear to be significant impact from
and sediment quality in Upper Peverly Brook.
Limited (magnitude and extent) VOC contamination (co
MCLs) exists in the US and LS groundwater, with no i
9.
Across Site 9, groundwater in the bedrock flows from
the wetlands.
With the exception of contamination associated with
hydrocarbon (HHC) bedrock groundwater plume, bedrock
contamination at Site 9 is at levels below MCLs and
contaminants, potentially associated with aircraft t
A.
Geology
This subsection provides a brief summary of basewide and site-spe
A more detailed description of Zone 5 geology is presented in the
Report (G-635).
Bedrock Geology
The bedrock in the vicinity of Pease AFB is composed of metamorph
volcanic, and intrusive igneous rocks of the Proterozoic to lower
Group. This group includes the Kittery and Eliot Formations, whi
of quartzite, phyllite, and metagraywacke.
The Eliot Formation comprises the bedrock underlying Site 9, wher
primarily of phyllite and metagraywacke, commonly interbedded on
The phyllite is light to medium gray, chlorite-quartz-sericite ph
phyllite, commonly with gray quartzite or metagraywacke laminatio
The phyllite is moderately to strongly foliated with crenulations
tan-weathering, medium to dark gray, light green-gray, fine-to-me
chlorite-sericite-quartz-feldspar metagraywacke. The metagraywac
silvery gray phyllite laminations and is moderately foliated to m
Bedding in the Eliot Formation is typically folded, striking nort
the northwest (50 to 90 degrees). The Eliot Formation is typical
foliated, with foliation commonly subparallel to the bedding. Na
planar or stepped, moderately rough, and commonly iron-stained (l
Milky quartz, white calcite, and quartz-calcite veins are common.
The bedrock topographic map of the Site 9 area (see Figure 5) was
drilling logs (see Appendix C of the Draft Final Zone 5 RI Report
refraction survey data. There are no bedrock surface contours in
drilling logs to confirm the results of the seismic refraction su
as seismic low or seismic high.
The bedrock surface in the Site 9 area slopes toward the west, re
approximately -5 ft MSL (see Figure 5). The maximum bedrock elev
80 ft MSL near the Newington Town Garage. The dominant feature i
trending bedrock valley located west of the former CRD-1 borrow p
<IMG SRC 0194094D>
Overburden Geology
The generalized stratigraphic sequence of the glacial deposits of
ascending order): till, stratified drift, including subaqueous o
of the Presumpscot Formation; and outwash, such as deltaic and su
The glacially derived overburden at Pease AFB is Wisconsinan in a
information, glaciomarine deposits have been divided into four un
to youngest):
Glacial Till (GT).
Lower Sand (LS).
Marine Clay and Silt (MCS).
Upper Sand (US).
The overburden unit at Pease AFB also includes Recent age sedimen
deposits and manmade fill. Although all of these units are prese
of the units may be absent at any particular borehole location.
section in Zone 5, and the cross-section location is shown in Fig
B.
Hydrogeology
Groundwater occurs in both the bedrock and the overlying unconsol
AFB. In some areas of Pease AFB, the unconsolidated deposits are
water table occurs in the bedrock unit. At other locations, the
layer and separates the US water-bearing unit from the deeper wat
Groundwater across Site 9 was observed in the glacial deposits (G
in bedrock. The overburden was observed to be unsaturated along
of Site 9, and the US was seasonally unsaturated at well 5048 loc
Merrimac Drive. A summary of hydrogeologic conditions observed a
the following subsections. Additional information is provided in
Report (G-635).
Overburden Hydrogeology
By convention, at locations where the MCS and LS are absent, the
bearing unit is referred to as the US even though saturated condi
unit. Across Site 9, the saturated thickness in the US unit rang
seasonally unsaturated areas (well 5048) to almost 40 feet at wel
unsaturated conditions in the US appear to coincide with bedrock
well 5048, with a knob of MCS (see Figures 6 and 7). Figure 7 is
groundwater flow unit potentiometric surface across Site 9, prepa
17 December 1992.
The saturated/unsaturated boundaries (as shown in Figure 5) were
boring and monitor well drilling logs and monthly water level mea
wells and piezometers. The maximum observed width of unsaturated
Site 9 (from the vicinity of the Newington Town Garage) was appro
estimate is based on saturated overburden conditions observed dur
installation at locations 7751, 7752, and 7786. In addition, the
calculated for the US water-bearing unit (0.03 ft/ft) (see Figure
refracted boundaries on the flow path diagrams, and bedrock eleva
estimate the western limit of unsaturated overburden. Based on t
estimated western limit of unsaturated overburden in December 199
approximately with the 85-ft MSL bedrock elevation contour (see F
Groundwater elevations in the US unit ranged from a maximum of ap
east of Site 9 near the unsaturated zone to a minimum of approima
wetlands west of CRD-1. The groundwater contours shown in Figure
to reflect groundwater elevations measured in the monitor wells a
vertical flow path diagrams of the Draft Final Zone 5 FS Report (
elevation of the top of the MCS near the wetlands (<41 ft MSL), t
groundwater in the US unit, the presence of Boiling Spring, and t
groundwater in the US and surface water in the wetlands, groundwa
<IMG SRC 0194094E>
<IMG SRC 0194094F>
likely discharges to the wetlands west of CRD-1. Examination of
between well 5099 and piezometer 7608, groundwater in the US unit
the wetlands, at a horizontal gradient of 0.02 ft/ft. In the vic
with the presence of the MCS unit, the horizontal hydraulic gradi
to approximately 0.0002 ft/ft. Using an effective porosity of 0.
gradient of 233 to 285 ft/day (G-635), the US groundwater velocit
range from approximately 1.49 to 16.0 ft/day.
Bedrock Hydrogeology
Figure 8 is a contour map of the bedrock potentiometric surface a
from data recorded on 17 December 1992. Water elevations measure
bedrock wells and hybrid wells were included for reference, but w
the potentiometric surface. Groundwater flows in the bedrock fro
and potentiometric high east of Site 8 toward the west and northw
Lithologic heterogeneities in the bedrock (e.g., diabase dikes) a
influence groundwater flow locally, but appear to have little inf
bedrock groundwater flow pattern. The groundwater velocity in be
estimated to range from approximately 32 to 120 ft/day, based on
hydraulic gradients of 0.008 to 0.03, a hydraulic conductivity of
porosity of 0.001 (G-635). Based on 17 December 1992 measurement
bedrock groundwater flows at a horizontal gradient of 0.03 ft/ft.
C. Distribution of Contamination
Site 9 Soil Quality
Throughout the three stages of investigation at Site 9, soil samp
suspected to be potential contaminant sources. During these inve
debris was identified at the site. The soil quality at Site 9 do
significantly affected by the construction debris or by previous
whether contaminant concentrations in the soil were related to pr
could impact human health or the environment, the detected concen
to background concentrations and a risk assessment was performed.
appropriate, the detected concentrations were compared to EPA and
criteria.
In general, relatively low concentrations and sparse occurrences
detected at the northern and western portions of CRD-1. The VOCs
samples were present at low concentrations. Total petroleum hydr
detected at two locations at concentrations above NHDES guideline
contamination. Only one of the locations, however, contained TPH
above background concentrations.
Semivolatile organic compounds (SVOCs) were detected at eight of
locations at Site 9. The presence of these SVOCs is likely attri
debris such as asphalt. Low concentrations of pesticides were de
samples, and the levels detected did not pose unacceptable risks
receptors.
With the exception of isolated, low-concentration detections of S
with asphalt in soil collected at CRD-1, the contamination distri
be related to known site activities.
Site 9 Groundwater Quality
Monitor wells were constructed in each water-bearing unit at Site
downgradient of potential sources of groundwater contamination.
the compounds detected in groundwater were related to previous si
impact human health or the environment, the detected groundwater
concentrations were compared to background concentrations, and a
performed. In addition, where appropriate, detected concentratio
<IMG SRC 0194094G>
and NHDES regulatory criteria. Based on the analytical results o
collected from the Site 9 monitor wells, it was concluded that gr
9 has not been affected by previous site activities.
The low concentrations of VOCs observed in groundwater samples co
overburden and bedrock wells at CRD-1 did not exceed MCLs, and ar
to Site 8 activities. The contaminated groundwater at Site 8 wil
Site 8 remedial action. With the exception of contamination asso
bedrock groundwater plume, bedrock VOC contamination at CRD-1 is
contaminants, and is not believed to be associated with Site 9 ac
this contamination has not been identified at CRD-1. No SVOCs or
detected in overburden groundwater samples.
Site 9 Surface Water and Sediment Quality
Peverly Brook is located west of CRD-1, with its headwaters immed
runway. Polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs) and TPHs were d
samples collected from Peverly Brook, but, based on the hydrogeol
contaminants are most likely related to deposits from jet engine
used on the runway light supports, rather than disposal activitie
concentrations detected in the surface water and sediment at this
occurring, and are not related to site activities. One organic c
detected in a single surface water sample. However, the presence
related to aircraft takeoffs and landings and not to site-related
sediment quality in the wetlands and Upper Peverly Brook do not a
affected by CRD-1 activities.
Site 11 Soil Quality
Throughout the three stages of investigation at Site 11, soil sam
suspected to be potential contaminant sources. Based on these in
contaminant source was identified at the site. Furthermore, the
not appear to be significantly affected by the reported site acti
the compounds detected in soil were related to previous site acti
human health or the environment, the detected contaminant concent
compared to background concentrations established for off-base so
was performed. In addition, where appropriate, contaminant conce
to EPA and NHDES regulatory criteria.
TPHs were detected in Site 11 soil samples at concentrations belo
concentrations and NHDES guidelines established for virgin petrol
Toluene, a VOC that is typically present in fuels and solvents, w
from two soil sampling locations. The detected concentrations of
of magnitude below NHDES cleanup guidelines. No SVOCs or pestici
above trace concentrations.
Site 11 Groundwater Quality
Monitor wells were constructed in locations at Site 11 suspected
contamination. To evaluate whether contaminant concentrations in
related to previous site activities or could impact human health
concentrations were compared to background concentrations obtaine
assessment was performed. In addition, where appropriate, the de
were compared against EPA and NHDES regulatory criteria. Based o
of groundwater samples collected from six monitor wells, and on t
background and risk-based concentrations, the groundwater quality
affected by past site activities.
Metals were detected in Site 11 unfiltered groundwater samples at
regulatory guidelines. However, these elevated levels are most l
sediment, which also affected the detected metals concentrations
concentrations of several metals from unfiltered groundwater samp
exceeded regulatory guidelines. These elevated levels are most l
artifacts and are not representative of actual conditions at CRDresampled four CRD-1 groundwater monitor wells using a low-flow s
confirm the actual metals concentrations at the site. The result
concentrations were well below regulatory guidelines. In additio
filtered groundwater samples from CRD-1 wells have consistently b
levels.
Nitrate/nitrite was detected in one groundwater sample from Site
1988 at a concentration that exceeded the nitrate/nitrite MCL. N
in subsequent samples from the same well at concentrations below
concentrations of trichloroethene (TCE) were detected in groundwa
from one piezometer. The absence of this compound in soil sample
site suggests that its presence also is localized. In addition,
groundwater flow directions between Site 8 and 11 indicate that t
detected at the one location at Site 11 do not originate from Sit
VI.
SUMMARY OF SITE RISKS
Human health and ecological risk assessments were performed to es
and magnitude of potential adverse human health and environmental
to contaminants associated with Sites 9 and 11 in Zone 5. The hu
assessment followed a four-step process:
1.
Contaminant identification, which identified those haza
given the specifics of the site, were of significant co
2.
Exposure assessment, which identified actual or potenti
characterized the potentially exposed populations, and
of possible exposure.
3.
Toxicity assessment, which considered the types and mag
health effects associated with exposure to hazardous su
4.
Risk characterization, which integrated the three earli
the potential and actual risks posed by cancer risks.
The results of the baseline human health and ecological risk asse
are discussed in the subsections that follow.
Site 9
A baseline risk assessment was prepared as part of the RI to eval
concentrations in Zone 5 soil, groundwater, surface water, or sed
risks to human and ecological receptors. The risk assessment for
following current and future use scenarios. Under current land u
inactive), access to Site 9 is limited to maintenance workers and
worker was selected as the current RME for the soil pathway for S
maintenance worker was assumed to be more likely than a trespasse
contact with soil on a regular basis. Because groundwater is not
a current RME was not selected for the groundwater pathway. It w
future land use of Site 9 will continue as industrial. Site 9 is
runway, which will continue to operate in the future. Therefore,
inactive in the future, serving only as an access route to the ru
runway lights. Future receptors at Site 9 would be limited to ma
trespassers. Therefore, a maintenance worker was chosen as the f
pathway for Site 9. An off-base resident was selected as the fut
groundwater pathway for Site 9. The results of the risk assessme
summarized in this subsection.
Human Health Risk
The results of the baseline risk assessment for Site 9, completed
that no unacceptable adverse health effects on human receptors re
ingestion of, or dermal contact with, contaminated soil sediment,
expected. Cancer risks are within EPA's acceptable risk range of
indices are less than 1.
Both cancer and noncancer risks posed by bedrock groundwater are
ranges. The cancer risk posed by exposure to overburden groundwa
(ranging from approximately 1 x 10-4 to 5 x 10-5). More than 99%
presence of arsenic. Arsenic is naturally occurring at Pease AFB
concentrations below the MCL (50 µg/L). Consequently, the calcul
arsenic in Site 9 overburden groundwater is lower than that posed
MCL. At the current MCL for arsenic, the lifetime cancer risk to
drinking water ingestion is calculated to range from approximatel
Ecological Risk
The baseline risk assessment for Site 9 indicated that no signifi
on ecological receptors resulting from ingestion of, or contact w
expected. The total hazard indices for ecological receptors asso
did not exceed 1. The total hazard indices for the ecological re
surface water were greater than 1, but were less than 10 based on
concentrations. A hazard index between 1 and 10 is subject to in
toxicity of the chemical and the uncertainty in the calculation.
and the more uncertainty in the risk calculation, the less concer
indices between 1 and 10. The primary contributor to chronic sur
total risk) in Peverly Brook was aluminum, wich exceeded criteria
Hazard indices for ecological receptors as a result of exposure t
The primary contributors to sediment risk were PAHs and pesticide
quotients for pesticides detected in Peverly Brook sediments, bas
ER-M values, exceeded 10. However, based on equilibrium partitio
recognized by EPA as a measure of bioavailability, an exceedence
one sediment sampling location (hazard quotient = 1,930). PAHs,
throughout the sediment sampling stations in Peverly Brook, were
PAH background levels for Pease AFB. The maximum hazard quotient
and ER-M values) for those PAHs slightly above background were gr
However, based on equilibrium partitioning, there were no hazard
1. Given the single exceedance of a hazard quotient of 10 for pe
exceedances of a hazard quotient of 1 for PAHs as determined by e
the ecological risks for sediments were found to be at an accepta
The baseline risk assessmest, presented in Section 6 of the Draft
(G-635), is available in the Administrative Record at the Pease A
Repository.
Site 11
A baseline risk assessment was prepared as part of the NFADD to e
contaminant levels detected at Site 11 pose unacceptable risks to
receptors. The risk assessment for Site 11 was based on the foll
use scenarios. Because of the proximity of Site 11 to the aircra
it was assumed that future use of Site 11, as with current use, w
commercial/industrial use (i.e., residential development would no
worker was chosen as the RME for the soil pathway. A future offselected as the RME for the groundwater pathway. Groundwater is
Site 11. The results of the risk assessment are summarized in th
Human Health Risk
The results of the risk assessment revealed that exposure to soil
pose a risk (either cancer or noncancer) to potential current or
above the EPA threshold criteria. Cancer risks are within EPA's
10-4 to 10-6, and hazard indices are less than 1.
Ecological Risk
Ecological risk was determined for representative ecological spec
maximum reported concentrations for the chemicals in surface soil
concentrations for only one compound (4,4'-DDT). While 4,4'-DDT
reported concentration does present a potential risk to ecologica
only positively identified (0.037 J mg/kg) in one 0- to 2-foot-de
VII. STATUTORY DETERMINATION
A. Rationale for Selecting No Action at Site 9
The statutory determinations required by CERCLA Section 121 for r
applicable because risk-based levels are not exceeded at Site 9.
The baseline risk assessment conducted during the RI at Site 9 (s
the basis for concluding that Site 9 poses no current or potentia
health or the environment. More information on the baseline risk
in the Draft Final Zone 5 RI Report (G-635). Concentrations of c
environmental media at the site do not create human health and en
resulting from exposure to site-related contaminants exceeding EP
Therefore, no action is required under CERCLA.
B.
Rationale for Selecting No Action at Site 11
The statutory determinations required by CERCLA Section 121 for r
applicable because risk-based levels are not exceeded at Site 11.
The baseline risk assessment, as described in Section VI, conduct
provides the basis for concluding that the conditions at Site 11
future threat to human health or the environment. The human heal
risks do not exceed EPA's acceptable ranges. Groundwater quality
and federal primary drinking water standards and ambient water qu
minimal surficial contamination observed at Site 11 did not excee
guidelines. Therefore, no further action is required. More info
assessment is presented in the IRP Site 11 NFADD (G-619). The cu
controls on the property, as stipulated by the FFA in the airport
ensure that the Site 11 area will only be used consistent with th
in Section VI.
VIII.
DOCUMENTATION OF SIGNIFICANT CHANGES
The Air Force presented a no action Zone 5 Proposed Plan for Site
1994 (G-671). There have been no changes in the selected alterna
the Draft Final Zone 5 FS Report (G-634) and Zone 5 (Sites 9 and
(G-671).
IX.
STATE ROLE
NHDES reviewed the various alternatives and has indicated its sup
remedy. NHDES has jurisdiction over Site 9 closure activities, a
coordinated with the appropriate NHDES divisions. A copy of the
Concurrence is provided as Appendix A.
REFERENCES
G-84
CH2M Hill.
NH.
1984.
Installation Restoration Program Record
G-468
Smith, G.W. and L.E. Hunter. 1989. "Late Wisconsinan Deg
Maine." In: Studies in Maine Geology - Volume 6: Quatern
and R.G. Marvinney (eds.). Maine Geological Survey. pp.
G-525
WESTON (Roy F. Weston, Inc.). 1986. Installation Restora
- Confirmation/Quantification, Stage 1 Final Report, Pease
G-530
WESTON (Roy F. Weston, Inc.). 1988. Interim Technical Re
Installation Restoration Program Stage 2, Pease AFB, NH.
G-531
WESTON (Roy F. Weston, Inc.). 1988. Interim Technical Re
Installation Restoration Program, Stage 2, Pease AFB, NH.
G-533
WESTON (Roy F. Weston, Inc.).
1989.
Installation Restora
Draft Final Report, Pease AFB, NH.
G-536
WESTON (Roy F. Weston, Inc.). 1989. Interim Technical Re
Installation Restoration Program, Stage 2, Pease AFB, NH.
G-537
WESTON (Roy F. Weston, Inc.). 1989. Interim Technical Re
Installation Restoration Program, Stage 2, Pease AFB, NH.
G-569
WESTON (Roy F. Weston, Inc.). 1991. Wetlands Determinati
NH. Phase 3 Investigation. June 1991.
G-599
WESTON (Roy F. Weston, Inc.).
AFB, NH. 17 September 1992.
G-619
WESTON (Roy F. Weston, Inc.). 1993. Installation Restora
11 No Further Action Decision Document, Pease AFB, NH. Fe
G-621
WESTON (Roy F. Weston, Inc.). 1993. Installation Restora
Wetlands Determination Report, Pease AFB, NH. February 19
G-634
WESTON (Roy F. Weston, Inc.). 1993. Installation Restora
Zone 5 Draft Final Feasibility Study Report, Pease AFB, NH
G-635
WESTON (Roy F. Weston, Inc.). 1993. Installation Restora
Zone 5 Draft Final Remedial Investigation, Pease AFB, NH.
1992.
Off-Base Well Invent
MK01\RPT:00628026.004\zone5rod.ref
REFERENCES
(Continued)
G-671
WESTON (Roy F. Weston, Inc.). 1994. Installation Restora
Zone 5 Draft Proposed Plan, Pease AFB, NH. January 1994.
MK01\RPT:00628026.004\zone5rod.ref
LIST OF ACRONYMS
AFB
AFCEE/ERB
ARAR
CERCLA
COC
CRD-1
DEQPPM
DOD
EDB
EER
EM
EPA
FDTA-2
Air Force Base
Air Force Center for Enviromnental Excellence/Base C
Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirement
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation,
Act
chemical of concern
Construction Rubble Dump 1
Defense Environmental Quality Program Policy Memorandu
Department of Defense
ethylene dibromide
electrical earth resistivity
electromagnetic
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Fire Department Training Area 2
FEMA
FFA
FMS
FS
ft MSL
GT
HHC
HQ AFBCA
IRP
ITR
LS
MAG
MCL
MCS
MOU
NFADD
NHANG
NHDES
NPL
PA
PAH
PDA
QAPP
RAO
RCRA
RI
RI/FS
RME
ROD
SAP
Federal Emergency Management Agency
Federal Facilities Agreement
Fuel Maintenance Squadron Equipment Cleaning Site
Feasibility Study
feet above mean sea level
Glacial Till
halogenated hydrocarbon
Headquarters Air Force Base Conversion Agency
Installation Restoration Plan
Interim Technical Report
Lower Sand
Military Airlift Group
Maximum Contaminant Level
Marine Clay and Silt
Memorandum of Understanding
No Further Action Decision Document
New Hampshire Air National Guard
New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services
National Priorities List
Preliminary Assessment
polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbon
Pease Development Authority
Quality Assurance Project Plan
Remedial Action Objective
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
Remedial Investigation
Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study
reasonable maximum exposure
Record of Decision
Sampling and Analysis Plan
MK01\RPT:00628026.004\zone5rod.acr
LIST OF ACRONYMS
(Continued)
SARA
SCOPE
SI
SVOCs
TCE
TPHs
TRC
US
USAFOEHL
USGS
VLF
WESTONr
Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act
Seacoast Citizens Overseeing Pease Enviromnent
Site Investigation
semivolatile organic compounds
trichloroethene
total petroleum hydrocarbons
Technical Review Committee
Upper Sand
U.S. Air Force Occupational and Environmental Health L
U.S. Geological Survey
very low-frequency
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
MK01\RPT:00628016.004\zone5rod.acr
APPENDIX A
DECLARATION OF CONCURRENCE
MK01\RPT:00628026.004\zone5rod.fm
State of New Hampshire
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
6 Hazen Drive, P.O. BOX 95, Concord, NH 03302-0095
603-271-3503
FAX 603-271-2867
TDD Access: Relay NH 1-800-735-2964
September 13, 1994
Mr. Alan K. Olsen
Director, Air Force Base Conversion Agency
1700 North Moore Street, Suite 2300
Arlington, VA 22209-2802
Re:
Record of Decision for Zone 5
Pease Air Force Base Superfund Site
Pease Air Force Base, New Hampshire
Subject:
Declaration of Concurrence
Dear Mr. Olsen:
In accordance with the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
and Liability Act of 1986 (CERCLA), the Air Force has prepared th
for Zone 5 (Zone 5 ROD) which presents the no-action decisions fo
of Concern (AOCs) in Zone 5 at the Pease Air Force Base Superfund
AOCs, identified in Appendix II of the "Pease Federal Facility Ag
Section 120" (Pease FFA), are: 1.) Site 9 - Construction Rubble
Field Maintenance Squadron Equipment Cleaning Site; and, 3.) Site
Training Area 2. The Zone 5 ROD addresses Sites 9 and 11 while S
addressed in a separate ROD.
As a party to the Pease FFA, and acting as agent for the State of
the Department concurs with the no-action decisions selected unde
and 11. Although no action under CERCLA is required, due to the
material at Site 9 (Construction Rubble Dump 1), the Department's
require closure of this site as a solid waste facility.
Whereas the Air Force has agreed to close Site 9 under State auth
opposed to CERCLA authority), the Air Force will be required to c
administrative, as well as substantive, requirements. (i.e., The
to obtain all applicable permits such as a Temporary Permit for t
facility, a Significant Alteration-of-Terrain Permit, and Groundw
DIV.
AIR RESOURCES DIV.
WASTE MANAGEMENT DIV.
WATER SUPPLY & POLLUTION CONTROL DIV.
WATER RESOUR
64 No. Main Street
Caller Box 2033
6 Hazen Drive
Concord, N.H.
Concord, N.H.
Tel. 603-271-2900
Concord
Fax 603-271-2456
Tel. 60
Fax 603
03301
64 No.
P.O. Bo
03302-0095
03302-2033
603-271-3503
Tel. 603-271-1370
Fax 603-271-1381
Letter to Alan K. Olsen
Re: Zone 5 ROD Declaration of Concurrence
September 13, 1994
Page 2
The Department's solid waste facility closure standards mand
shall be closed in a manner that does not endanger public health
environment and which minimizes the potential for accidents that
injury or property damage. (Env-Wm 312.01). The Department will
closure design documents and monitoring plans in order to ensure
applicable State regulations:
-
The capping system;
The gas management system and post-closure landfill g
(if necessary);
The landfill settlement monitoring system and monitor
The stormwater management (drainage) system;
The groundwater and surface water monitoring system;
Long-term operation and maintenance plan; and
Post closure access control systems.
Long-term monitoring will be necessary in order to determine
the closure actions at Site 9. Water quality monitoring is deter
basis and will be addressed in the Groundwater Management Permit.
location of water quality monitoring is typically required on a t
baseline condition is established. A comprehensive, detailed rev
will be conducted by the Air Force and the Department in order to
action provides adequate protection of human health and the envir
with applicable regulations.
Sincerely,
Robert W. Varney
Commissioner
cc:
Philip J. O'Brien, Ph.D., Director, DES-WMD
Carl W. Baxter, P.E., DES-WMEB
Richard H. Pease, P.E., DES-WMEB
Martha A. Moore, Esq., NHDOJ-AGO
Michael J. Daly, EPA
Arthur L. Ditto, P.E., AFBCA
James Snyder, AFCEE
APPENDIX B
RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY
mk01\rpt:00628026.004\ZONE5ROD.APB
09/13
RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY
OVERVIEW
The Air Force issued the Zone 5 Proposed Plan to the public in Ja
Zone 5 Proposed Plan the Air Force identified its preferred alter
Site 9 and Site 11. The selection of these preferred alternative
coordinated with USEPA Region 1 and NHDES. The preferred alterna
action at each of the sites.
The sections below describe the background on commiunity involvem
activities and the Air Force's response to both written and verba
the Zone 5 Proposed Plan Public Comment Period of January 26, 199
BACKGROUND ON COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT
Prior to the start of the public comment period the Air Force iss
summarized the contents of the Zone 5 Proposed Plan. Presentatio
being conducted and results of the work in the Zone 5 area were m
Technical Review Committee (TRC). Additionally, the content of t
Plan was presented to and discussed with the members of the TRC.
mailed to all individuals on the Pease AFB mailing list in Januar
beginning of the public comment period. Additionally, press rele
media announcing the beginning of the public comment period. Ann
published in two local newspapers prior to the public hearing dat
original public hearing, scheduled for February 9, 1994, had to b
inclement weather. Notices of cancellation were sent to all medi
The rescheduled public hearing date and public comment period ext
were published in two local newspapers. It is noted that the pub
public hearing for Zone 5 ran concurrent with Site 8. Proposed r
5 and Site 8 were presented together to the public.
SUMMARY OF COMMENTS RECEIVED DURING THE COMMENT PERIOD AND AIR
FORCE RESPONSES
During the public comment period, written comments were received
one verbal comment relative to Zone 5 was made by a Citizen's gro
1.
Comment (written):
What is the Plan for the landscape restor
Response:
Zone 5 designates an area of Pease AFB wh
been grouped together, in this case Sites
of Zone 5, restoration does not occur for
only for the sites covered in the Zone 5
11 no action has been selected, therefore
be necessary. An earthen cap will be con
area.
This cap will include seeding of t
MK01\RPT:00628026.004\zone5rod.apb
2.
Comment (verbal):
As for Site 9, the Construction Rubble Du
that no further action is required other
under the State of New Hampshire's landfi
3.
Comment (verbal):
Likewise with Site 11, the Field Maintena
equipment cleaning site, it should requir
Response:
The Air Force acknowledges SCOPE's concur
preferred alternatives for these two site
MK01\RPT:00628026.004\zone5rod.apb
APPENDIX C
ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD IND
FOR PEASE, AFB
MK01\RPT:00628026.004\zone5rod.apc
ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD FILE IN
FOR THE
INSTALLATION RESTORATION PROG
PEASE AIR FORCE BASE
NEW HAMPSHIRE
JANUARY 1994
MK01\RPT:00628026.004\zone5rod.apc
ABOUT THE ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD FILE
The administrative record file is a collection of document
the selection of a response action at a Superfund site. Under se
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability
U.S. Air Force is required to establish an administrative record
response action and to make a copy of the administrative record a
site.
The administrative record file must be reasonably availabl
normal business hours. The record file should be treated as a no
document. This will allow the public greater access to the volum
risk of loss or damage. Individuals may photocopy any documents
portion of the file, according to the photocopying procedures at
The documents in the administrative record file may become
use. If this occurs, contact the administrative record file mana
Documents may be added to the administrative record file as site
index will be updated as documents are added to the administrativ
The administrative record file will be maintained in Build
Questions and/or comments about the administrative record file sh
Arthur L. Ditto, Remedial Project Manager
Air Force Base Disposal Agency
Operating Location A, Building 43
61 International Drive
Pease AFB, NH 03803-0157
(603) 430-2586
Dynamac Corporation assisted in the organization, establishment a
Admmistrative Record File at Pease Air Force Base.
MK01\RPT:00628026.004\zone5rod.apc
ABOUT THE INDEX NUMBERING SYSTEM
Document Number -
Comprised of a 3 letter site code (PEA), the
the entry number and the page range of a doc
page numbers will be the same for a one page
documents are eventually placed on a microfi
document number consists of the site code fo
microfilm reel and frame number.
Example:
PEA (1.1) #1 001-031
Site Code
(Category #)
Entry #
PEA
(1.1)
#1
Long Title
The long title and brief description
Author
Indicates author or primary originato
contractor prepared the document, ind
and location.
Recipient
Indicates primary recipient of docume
Date
Indicates date document was issued.
Type
Indicates document type
Second Reference
Other categories pertaining to the do
Location
Exact location(s) of document.
MK01\RPT:00628026.004\zone5rod.apc
ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD FILE 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 Remo
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
Eplanations of Significant Differences
5.4
Correspondence
MK01\RPT:00628026.004\zone5rod.apc
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
Docmentation of Technical Discussions/Response Ac
7.7
Notice Letters and Responses
8.0
HEALTH ASSESSMENTS
8.1
ATSDR Health Assessments
8.2
Toxicological Profiles
8.3
General Correspondence
9.0
NATURAL RESOURCE TRUSTEES
9.1
Notices Issued
9.2
Findings of Fact
9.3
Reports
9.4
General Correspondence
10.0
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
10.1
Comments and Responses
10.2
Community Relations Plan
10.3
Public Notice(s) (Availability of the Admin. Reco
Availability of the Proposed Plan, Public Meeting
10.4
Public Meetings Transcripts
10.5
Documentation of other Public Meetings
10.6
Fact Sheets, Press Advisories, and News Releases
10.7
Responsiveness Summary
10.8
Late Comments
10.9
Technical Review Committee Charter
10.10
Correspondence
MK01\RPT:00628026.004\zone5rod.apc
11.0
TECHNICAL SOURCES, GUIDANCE, AND PROCEDURES DOCUMENTS
11.1
11.2
11.3
11.4
11.5
11.6
11.7
12.0
EPA Headquarters Guidance
EPA Regional Guidance
State Guidance
Air Force Guidance
Technical Sources
Proposed Procedures/Procedures
Correspondence
CONFIDENTIAL FILE
12.1
Privileged Documents (Extractions)
MK01\RPT:00628026.004\zone5rod.apc
0
1.1
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
Background - RCRA and Ot
PEA (1.1) #1 001-031
"Scope of Work for the Remedial Investigatio
Pease Air Force Base
EPA, NHDES
April 1991
Scope of Work for RI/FS
None
ARF, IR
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
#
MK01\RPT:00628026.004\zone5rod.apc
09/09/94
1.2
*NOTE:
Notification/Site Ins
NO ENTRIES IN THIS SECTION AT THIS TIME
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
#
MK01\RPT:00628026.004\zone5rod.apc
09/09/94
1.3 Preliminary Assessmen
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
Sampling for SI Work)"
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
Brooks AFB, TX
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
Offutt AFB, NE
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (1.3) #1 001-068
"Phase II Problem Confirmation and Quantific
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
EPA, NHDES, USAF Occupational and Environmen
June 1984
Technical Report
None
ARF, IR
#
PEA (1.3) #2 001-182
"Installation Restoration Program Records Se
CH2M Hill
EPA; NHDES; USAF Engineering & Services Cent
January 1984
Technical Report
None
ARF, IR
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
#
PEA (1.3) #1 001-041
"Preliminary Assessment - Updated PA Report"
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
EPA, NHDES
20 July 1990
Letter Report
None
ARF, IR
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
#
PEA (1.3) #4 001.I.2
Final Preliminary Assessment Report Portsmou
ICF Kaiser Engineers, Inc.
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
286 Congress Street, 7th Floor
Boston, Massachusetts 02210
USAF
November 1991
Report
None
ARF, IR
#
MK01\RPT:00628026.004\zone5rod.apc
09/09/94
1.4
Site Investigatio
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (1.4) #1 001-309
LONG TITLE:
"Installation Restoration Program, Phase II
I, Volume I (Final Report for Period
October 1984 - July 1986)"
AUTHOR:
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
RECIPIENT:
HQ SAC/SGPB, Offutt AFB, NE; EPA; NHDES
DATE:
August 1986
TYPE:
Technical Report: Field Investigations
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF, IR
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
1, Volume II (Appendices)"
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
#
PEA (1.4) #2 001-883
"Installation Restoration Program, Phase II
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) #3 001-308
LONG TITLE:
"Installation Restoration Program, Stage 3B Prel
Inspection"
AUTHOR:
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
RECIPIENT:
EPA; NHDES; HQ SAC/DE, Offutt AFB, NE; AFSC
Brooks AFB, TX
DATE:
February 1991
TYPE:
Technical Report: Also includes review of PA
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF, IR
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (1.4) #4 001-088
LONG TITLE:
Final Portsmouth Refuse to Energy Plant Site Ins
NH
AUTHOR:
ICF Kaiser Engineers, Inc.
286 Congress Street, 7th Floor
Boston, Massachusetts 02210
RECIPIENT:
USAF
DATE:
July 1992
TYPE:
Report
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF, IR
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (1.4) #5 001-D
LONG TITLE:
Final Portsmouth Refuse to Energy Plant Site Ins
AUTHOR:
ICF Kaiser Engineers, Inc.
286 Congress Street, 7th Floor
Boston, Massachusetts 02210
RECIPIENT:
USAF
DATE:
July 1992
TYPE:
Appendices
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (1.4) #6 001-B17
LONG TITLE:
Pease AFB Railroad Tracks (Site 46) Site Investi
MK01\RPT:00628026.004\zone5rod.apc
09/09/94
AUTHOR:
Weston
RECIPIENT:
USAF
DATE:
24 September 1992
TYPE:
Letter Report
SECOND REFERENCE:
PEA (1.6)
LOCATION:
ARF, IR
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (1.4) #7 001-Acr.3
LONG TITLE:
U.S. Air Force Installation Restoration Program
Inspection Report Text DRAFT
AUTHOR:
Weston
RECIPIENT:
USAF
DATE:
June 1993
TYPE:
Report
SECOND REFERENCE:
Zones 6 and 7
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (1.4) #8 001-Plate 2
LONG TITLE:
U.S. Air Force Installation Restoration Program
Inspection Report Figures DRAFT
AUTHOR:
Weston
RECIPIENT:
USAF
DATE:
June 1993
TYPE:
Figures
SECOND REFERENCE:
Zones 6 and 7
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (1.4) #9 001-H
LONG TITLE:
U.S. Air Force Installation Restoration Program
Inspection Appendices A, B, C, D, E,
F, G and H DRAFT
AUTHOR:
Weston
RECIPIENT:
USAF
DATE:
June 1993
TYPE:
Appendices
SECOND REFERENCE:
Zones 6 and 7
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (1.4) #10 001-L.17
LONG TITLE:
U.S. Air Force Installation Restoration Program
Inspection Appendices I and L DRAFT
AUTHOR:
Weston
RECIPIENT:
USAF
DATE:
June 1993
TYPE:
Appendices
SECOND REFERENCE:
Zones 6 and 7
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (1.4) #10 001-J
LONG TITLE:
U.S. Air Force Installation Restoration Program
Inspection Appendices J and K DRAFT
AUTHOR:
Weston
RECIPIENT:
USAF
DATE:
June 1993
TYPE:
Appendices
SECOND REFERENCE:
Zones 6 and 7
LOCATION:
ARF
MK01/RPT:00628026.004\zone5rod.apc
09/09/94
1.5 Previous Operable Unit
*NOTE:
NO ENTRIES IN THIS SECTION AT THIS TIME
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
#
MK01\RPT:00628026.004\zone5rod.apc
09/09/94
1.6
Correspon
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (1.6) #1 001-002
LONG TITLE:
"Comments Regarding the Installation Restoration
Search Report, Pease Air Force Base"
AUTHOR:
The State of New Hampshire, Water Supply and Pol
Commission
RECIPIENT:
HQ SAC, Offutt AFB, NE
DATE:
16 March 1984
TYPE:
Letter/Comments
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF, IR
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (1.6) #2 001-004
LONG TITLE:
"Comments Regarding the Installation Restoration
AUTHOR:
State of New Hampshire, Division of Public Healt
RECIPIENT:
NH Division of Public Health Services
DATE:
24 November 1986
TYPE:
Comments to SI (1.4)
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (1.6) #3 001-005
LONG TITLE:
"Comments Regarding the Phase II, Stage 1 IR
AUTHOR:
State of New Hampshire, Department of Environmen
RECIPIENT:
Air Force
DATE:
3 February 1987
TYPE:
Comments to SI (1.4)
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (1.6) #4 001-007
LONG TITLE:
"Air Force Responses to Comments From the New Ha
Environmental Services on the Phase II,
Stage 1 IRP Draft Report"
AUTHOR:
Department of the Air Force
RECIPIENT:
NHDES
DATE:
8 May 1987
TYPE:
Responses to Comments to SI (1.4)
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (1.6) #5 001-001
LONG TITLE:
"Letter Regarding Water Sample Obtained from the
Spring"
AUTHOR:
State of New Hampshire, Department of Environmen
RECIPIENT:
Air Force
DATE:
29 June 1990
TYPE:
Letter
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (1.6) #6 001-004
LONG TITLE:
"Letter Concerning Site Walkovers made with Memb
Group"
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
State of New Hampshire, Department of Environmen
Air Force
18 July 1990
Letter
MK01\RPT:00628026.004\zone5rod.apc
09/09/94
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (1.6) #7 001-001
LONG TITLE:
Submittal of Site 42 Site Inspection Report
AUTHOR:
USAF
RECIPIENT:
Johanna Hunter, USEPA
DATE:
28 July 1992
TYPE:
Letter
SECOND REFERENCE:
Site 42
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (1.6) #8 001-001
LONG TITLE:
Railroad Track SI Letter Report
AUTHOR:
USAF
RECIPIENT:
Johanna Hunter, USEPA
Richard Pease, NHDES
DATE:
30 September 1992
TYPE:
Letter
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF
#
MK01\RPT:00628026.004\zone5rod.apc
09/09/94
2.1
*NOTE:
NO ENTRIES IN THIS SECTION AT THIS TIME
Sampling and Analy
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
#
MK01\RPT:00628026.004\zone5rod.apc
09/09/94
2.2
*NOTE:
Sampling and Analysis Data
NO ENTRIES IN THIS SECTION AT THIS TIME
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
#
MK01\RPT:00628026.004\zone5rod.apc
09/09/94
2.3
NOTE:
EE/CA Approval Memorandum (Non-T
NO ENTRIES IN THIS SECTION AT THIS TIME
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
MK01\RPT:00628026.004\zone5rod.apc
09/09/94
2.4
NOTE:
EE/CA (Engineering Evaluati
NO ENTRIES IN THIS SECTION AT THIS TIME
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
MK01\RPT:00628026.004\zone5rod.apc
09/09/94
2.5
*NOTE:
Action Memoran
NO ENTRIES IN THIS SECTION AT THIS TIME
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
#
MK01\RPT:00628026.004\zone5rod.apc
09/09/94
2.6
*NOTE:
Amendments to Action M
NO ENTRIES IN THIS SECTION AT THIS TIME
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
#
MK01\RPT:00628026.004\zone5rod.apc
09/09/94
2.7
Removal Respon
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (2.7) #1 001-452
LONG TITLE:
"Informal Technical Information Report, Drum Rem
Pre-NPL Actions"
AUTHOR:
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
RECIPIENT:
EPA, NHDES
DATE:
December 1990
TYPE:
Technical Report
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (2.7) #2 001-070
LONG TITLE:
"Informal Technical Information Report, Soil Rem
Pre-NPL Actions"
AUTHOR:
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
RECIPIENT:
EPA, NHDES
DATE:
December 1990
TYPE:
Technical Report
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (2.7) #3 001-142
LONG TITLE:
"Informal Technical Information Report, Soil Rem
- Pre-NPL Actions"
AUTHOR:
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
RECIPIENT:
EPA, NHDES
DATE:
January 1991
TYPE:
Technical Report
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (2.7) #4 001-244
LONG TITLE:
"Informal Technical Information Report, Soil Rem
- Pre-NPL Actions"
AUTHOR:
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
RECIPIENT:
EPA, NHDES
DATE:
April 1991
TYPE:
Technical Report
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (2.7) #5 001-900
LONG TITLE:
Installation Restoration Program, Stage 3 A, IRP
Plant, Pease AFB, NH - Volume II
AUTHOR:
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
RECIPIENT:
USAF
DATE:
November 1991
TYPE:
Report
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (2.7) #6 001-H.12
LONG TITLE:
Installation Restoration Program, Stage 3 A, IRP
Plant, Pease AFB, NH - Volume I
AUTHOR:
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
RECIPIENT:
USAF
DATE:
November 1991
TYPE:
Report
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
MK01\RPT:00628026.004\zone5rod.apc
09/09/94
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (2.7) #7 001-E
LONG TITLE:
Installation Restoration Program, Stage 4, Lette
Pit Operation at the McIntyre Road Drum
Disposal Area for Pease AFB, NH - Draft
AUTHOR:
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
RECIPIENT:
USAF
DATE:
February 1992
TYPE:
Letter Report
SECOND REFERENCE:
PEA (2.8)
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (2.7) #8 001-601
LONG TITLE:
Installation Restoration Program, Stage 3B, IRP
Treatment Plant, Informal Technical Information
Report, Pease AFB, NH, Appendix K - Draft
AUTHOR:
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
RECIPIENT:
USAF
DATE:
October 1992
TYPE:
Report
SECOND REFERENCE:
Site 32/36
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (2.7) #9 001-J.4
LONG TITLE:
Installation Restoration Program, Stage 3B, IRP
Treatment Plant, Informal Technical Information
Missing Data Report, Pease AFB, NH, - Techni
AUTHOR:
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
RECIPIENT:
USAF
DATE:
October 1992
TYPE:
Report
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (2.7) #10 001-D4
LONG TITLE:
Installation Restoration Program, Stage 3B, IRP
Treatment Plant, Informal Technical Report, Pease
AFB, NH, Appendices A-D - Draft
AUTHOR:
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
RECIPIENT:
USAF
DATE:
November 1992
TYPE:
Report
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (2.7) #11 001-808
LONG TITLE:
Installation Restoration Program, Stage 3B, IRP
Treatment Plant, Informal Technical Information
Report, Pease AFB, NH, Appendices E-G - Draf
AUTHOR:
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
RECIPIENT:
USAF
DATE:
November 1992
TYPE:
Report
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF
#
MK01\RPT:00628026.004\zone5rod.apc
09/09/94
2.8
Correspond
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (2.8) #1 001-002
LONG TITLE:
"Tank Removal at Building 244"
AUTHOR:
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
RECIPIENT:
Air Force
DATE:
8 March 1989
TYPE:
Letter
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (2.8) #2 001-002
LONG TITLE:
"Review Comments Regarding Site 32/36 Groundwate
Contract Document and Specifications"
AUTHOR:
State of New Hampshire, Department of Environmen
RECIPIENT:
Air Force
DATE:
25 September 1990
TYPE:
Letter
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (2.8) #3 001-001
LONG TITLE:
"Letter Regarding Fire Training Area No. 2, Pilo
System"
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
Department of the Air Force
Air Force
11 October 1990
Letter
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
ARF
None
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (2.8) #4 001-003
LONG TITLE:
"IRP Site 32/36 Recovery Well Update"
AUTHOR:
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
RECIPIENT:
Air Force
DATE:
1 November 1990
TYPE:
Letter
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (2.8) #5 001-005
LONG TITLE:
"Letter Regarding Anticipated Effluent Quality f
Plants at Sites 32/36 and 34"
AUTHOR:
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
RECIPIENT:
Air Force
DATE:
5 November 1990
TYPE:
Letter
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (2.8) #6 001-001
LONG TITLE:
"Letter Regarding Fire Training Area No. 2, Pilo
System"
AUTHOR:
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
RECIPIENT:
Air Force
DATE:
12 November 1990
TYPE:
Letter
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
MK01\RPT:00628026.004\zone5rod.apc
09/09/94
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (2.8) #7 001-004
LONG TITLE:
"Corrected Tables for 5 November 1990 letter," A
from Groundwater Treatment Plants at Sites
32/36 and 34."
AUTHOR:
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
RECIPIENT:
Air Force
DATE:
3 December 1990
TYPE:
Letter
SECOND REFERENCE:
Site 32/36
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (2.8) #8 001-004
LONG TITLE:
"Letter Regarding the Approval of Pease Air Forc
No. 8908-25P for the Fire Department
Training Area"
AUTHOR:
State of New Hampshire, Department of Environmen
RECIPIENT:
Air Force
DATE:
11 September 1989
TYPE:
Letter
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (2.8) #9 001-002
LONG TITLE:
"Letter Regarding Review of a Supplemental Propo
Contaminated Groundwater"
AUTHOR:
State of New Hampshire, Department of Environmen
RECIPIENT:
Air Force
DATE:
13 September 1989
TYPE:
Letter
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (2.8) #10
LONG TITLE:
"Letter Regarding
8908-25P of the Former Fire Department
Training Area
AUTHOR:
U.S. Air Force
RECIPIENT:
State of New
DATE:
18 April 1990
TYPE:
Letter
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF
#
001-003
Revision of Pease Air Force Ba
No. 2, Site 8"
Hampshire
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (2.8) #11 001-001
LONG TITLE:
"Letter Regarding Groundwater Discharge Permit N
AUTHOR:
State of New Hampshire, Department of Environmen
RECIPIENT:
Air Force
DATE:
5 July 1990
TYPE:
Letter
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (2.8) #12 001-002
LONG TITLE:
"Letter to the New Hampshire Department of Envir
Amendments to Groundwater Treatment
System air emissions"
AUTHOR:
Air Force
MK01\RPT:00628026.004\zone5rod.apc
09/09/94
RECIPIENT:
NHDES
DATE:
20 August 1990
TYPE:
Letter
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (2.8) #13 001-041
LONG TITLE:
"New Hampshire wetlands permit for National Prio
work site 32/36"
AUTHOR:
Air Force
RECIPIENT:
State of New Hampshire
DATE:
22 August 1990
TYPE:
Permit
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (2.8) #14 001-002
LONG TITLE:
"Request for additional information regarding pi
systems for areas of concern 32/36 and 34"
AUTHOR:
State of New Hampshire, Department of Environmen
RECIPIENT:
Air Force
DATE:
11 January 1991
TYPE:
Request for Information
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (2.8) #15 001-001
LONG TITLE:
"Letter to New Hampshire Department of Environme
pilot groundwater treatment system for IRP
Sites 32/36 and Site 34"
AUTHOR:
Department of the Air Force
RECIPIENT:
New Hampshire Department of Environmental S
DATE:
24 January 1991
TYPE:
Letter
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (2.8) #16 001-005
LONG TITLE:
"Letter Regarding Notification of Intent to Disc
Groundwater Treatment Systems"
AUTHOR:
U.S. Department of the Air Force
RECIPIENT:
New Hampshire Department of Environmental S
US EPA
DATE:
10 December 1990
TYPE:
Letter
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (2.8) #17 001-002
LONG TITLE:
"Letter to U.S. EPA regarding pilot groundwater
32/36 and Site 34"
AUTHOR:
U.S. Department of the Air Force
RECIPIENT:
US EPA
DATE:
24 January 1991
TYPE:
Letter
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (2.8) #18 001-001
MK01\RPT:00628026.004\zone5rod.apc
09/09/94
LONG TITLE:
IRP Site 34, Groundwater Treatment Plant
AUTHOR:
USAF
RECIPIENT:
Johanna Hunter, USEPA
DATE:
13 August 1992
TYPE:
Letter
SECOND REFERENCE:
PEA (2.7); Site 34
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (2.8) #19 001-008
LONG TITLE:
Proposal to Upgrade IRP Site 8 Pilot Groundwater
Systems
AUTHOR:
Fred Symmes
Assistant Project Engineer
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
RECIPIENT:
Mark McKenzie
U.S. Air Force/Pease AFB
DATE:
14 September 1992
TYPE:
Letter with Maps
SECOND REFERENCE:
Site 8, Pilot Groundwater Recovery and Rech
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (2.8) #20 001-001
LONG TITLE:
Pease AFB Site 32/36 Groundwater Treatment Plant
Information Report
AUTHOR:
Weston
RECIPIENT:
USAF
DATE:
14 October 1992
TYPE:
Letter
SECOND REFERENCE:
PEA (2.7); Site 32/36
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (2.8) #21 001-001
LONG TITLE:
Pease AFB Site 34 GWTP Informal Technical Report
AUTHOR:
Weston
RECIPIENT:
USAF
DATE:
19 October 1992
TYPE:
Letter
SECOND REFERENCE:
PEA (2.7); Site 34
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (2.8) #22 001-007
LONG TITLE:
Notification of Treatment of Extraction Water fr
AUTHOR:
USAF
RECIPIENT:
NHDES, Water Supply and Pollution Control D
DATE:
26 November 1991
TYPE:
Letter
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (2.8) #23 001-004
LONG TITLE:
Site 8 Groundwater Remediation System Update
AUTHOR:
Lee dePersia
Task Manager
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
RECIPIENT:
Arthur Ditto, RPM
U.S. Air Force/Pease AFB
DATE:
2 December 1992
MK01\RPT:00628026.004\zone5rod.apc
09/09/94
TYPE:
Letter with Maps
SECOND REFERENCE:
Site 8, FDTA - 2
LOCATION:
ARF
#
MK01\RPT:00628026.004\zone5rod.apc
09/09/94
3.1
Sampling and Analys
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.1) #1 001-210
LONG TITLE:
"Quality Assurance Project Plan, Integrated Inst
Stage 2, to Support the Preliminary Remedial
Investigation Field Work, Labelled Stage 2 F
AUTHOR:
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
RECIPIENT:
EPA; NHDES; HQ SAC/DEPV, Offutt AFB, NE
DATE:
November 1987
TYPE:
Quality Assurance Project Plan
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.1) #2 001-212
LONG TITLE:
"Quality Assurance Project Plan, Integrated Inst
Stage 3"
AUTHOR:
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
RECIPIENT:
EPA, NHDES
DATE:
August 1989
TYPE:
Quality Assurance Project Plan
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.1) #3 001-286
LONG TITLE:
"Installation Restoration Program, Stage 4 Sampl
AUTHOR:
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
RECIPIENT:
EPA, NHDES
DATE:
January 1991
TYPE:
Sampling and Analysis Plan
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.1) #4 001-045
LONG TITLE:
"IRP Health Assessment Sampling and Analysis Pla
226)"
AUTHOR:
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
RECIPIENT:
EPA, NHDES
DATE:
April 1991
TYPE:
Sampling and Analysis Plan
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.1) #5 001-006
LONG TITLE:
Site 39 Aquifer Test Procedure Plan for Bedrock
AUTHOR:
Robert J. Casper
Project Geologist
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
RECIPIENT:
Mark McKenzie
U.S. Air Force/Pease AFB
DATE:
15 October 1992
TYPE:
Letter with Table and Map
SECOND REFERENCE:
Bedrock Well 39-6080 in Zone 3
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.1) #6 001-005
LONG TITLE:
Pumping Tests at Site 32/36
AUTHOR:
Amy E. Bruckner, P.G.
MK01\RPT:00628026.004\zone5rod.apc
09/09/94
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
Arthur Ditto
U.S. Air Force/Pease AFB
DATE:
22 Janurary 1991
TYPE:
Letter with Tables and Map
SECOND REFERENCE:
Site 32/36, Wells 6013 and 6014
LOCATION:
ARF
RECIPIENT:
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.1) #7 001-003
LONG TITLE:
Locations of Background Sampling Locations
AUTHOR:
Arthur L. Ditto
RPM, U.S. Air Force/Pease AFB
RECIPIENT:
Johanna Hunter, RPM
USEPA, Region 1
and
Richard Pease, RPM
NHDES
DATE:
15 June 1992
TYPE:
Letter and Map
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
ARF
Stage 3C Background Data Base
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.1) #8 001-004
LONG TITLE:
Aquifer Testing Proposed for Site 8 (Bedrock Wel
AUTHOR:
Robert J. Casper
Project Geologist
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
RECIPIENT:
Mark McKenzie
U.S. Air Force/Pease AFB
DATE:
28 August 1992
TYPE:
Letter with Table and Map
SECOND REFERENCE:
Site 8, Bedrock Well 08-622, Zone 5
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.1) #9 001-001
LONG TITLE:
Horizontal Drilling Technique (Video)
AUTHOR:
Lee R. dePersia
Task Manager
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
RECIPIENT:
Arthur Ditto
RPM, U.S. Air Force
Pease AFB
DATE:
28 September 1992
TYPE:
Letter
SECOND REFERENCE:
"Horizontal Wellbore System"
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.1) #10 001-003
LONG TITLE:
Zone 3 Pumping Tests
AUTHOR:
Robert J. Casper
Project Geologist
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
RECIPIENT:
Mark McKenzie
U.S. Air Force/Pease AFB
DATE:
28 September 1992
TYPE:
Letter and Table
MK01\RPT:00628026.004\zone5rod.apc
09/09/94
SECOND REFERENCE:
Zone 3
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.1) #11 001-R1
LONG TITLE:
Installation Restoration Program, Stage 4 Sampli
Addendum 3, Pease AFB, NH - Draft
AUTHOR:
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
RECIPIENT:
USAF
DATE:
October 1992
TYPE:
Addendum
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.1) #12 001-005
LONG TITLE:
Site 72 Aquifer Test Proposed for Bedrock Well 7
AUTHOR:
Robert J. Casper
Project Geologist
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
RECIPIENT:
Mark McKenzie
U.S. Air Force/Pease AFB
DATE:
1 October 1992
TYPE:
Letter with Table and Map
SECOND REFERENCE:
Site 72, Zone 3
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.1) #13 001-004
LONG TITLE:
Site 31 Aquifer Test Plan for Lower Sand Well 31
AUTHOR:
James G. Spratt
Project Geologist
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
RECIPIENT:
Mark McKenzie
U.S. Air Force/Pease AFB
DATE:
1 October 1992
TYPE:
Letter with Table and Map
SECOND REFERENCE:
Site 31, Zone 3
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.1) #14 001-005
LONG TITLE:
Site 39 Aquifer Test Plan for Lower Sand Well 39
AUTHOR:
Robert J. Casper
Project Geologist
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
RECIPIENT:
Mark McKenzie
U.S. Air Force/Pease AFB
DATE:
15 October 1992
TYPE:
Letter with Table and Map
SECOND REFERENCE:
Well 39-5101/Lower Sand Unit at Site 39
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.1) #15 001-001
LONG TITLE:
Analysis Using SW846 Method 8330 for Explosives
AUTHOR:
Edward S. Barnes, P.E., C.I.H.
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
RECIPIENT:
Capt. Carl Woerhle
U.S. Air Force/Base Closure Division
Air Force Base Center for Environmental Exce
MK01\RPT:00628026.004\zone5rod.apc
09/09/94
DATE:
23 October 1992
TYPE:
Letter
SECOND REFERENCE:
Samples for SW8330 Analysis
LOCATION:
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.1) #16 001-003
LONG TITLE:
Recommendations to Characterize Overburden Groun
Direction near Site 8 (Zone 5)
AUTHOR:
Jennifer D. Toney, P.G.
Zone Manager
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
RECIPIENT:
Arthur Ditto
U.S. Air Force/Pease AFB
DATE:
5 November 1992
TYPE:
Letter with Map
SECOND REFERENCE:
Site 8, Zone 5
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.1) #17 001-005
LONG TITLE:
Ethylene Dibromide (EDB) Analysis using Modified
AUTHOR:
Edward S. Barnes, P.E., C.I.H.
Project Director
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
RECIPIENT:
Capt. Carl Woerhle
U.S. Air Force/Base Closure Division
Air Force Center for Environmental Excellenc
DATE:
19 November 1992
TYPE:
Letter with 4 Page Attachment
SECOND REFERENCE:
Analytical Method Recommended for EDB Analy
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.1) #18 001-007
LONG TITLE:
Objectives of Site 10 Aquifer Test (well 10-6048
AUTHOR:
James J. Soukup
Senior Hydrogeologist
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
RECIPIENT:
Mark McKenzie
U.S. Air Force/Pease AFB
DATE:
30 November 1992
TYPE:
Letter with Tables and Maps
SECOND REFERENCE:
Site 10, Well 10-6048, Zone 2 Leaded Fuel T
Area.
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.1) #19 2.24-R.1
LONG TITLE:
Stage 4 Sampling and Analysis Plan, Addendum #3,
AUTHOR:
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
RECIPIENT:
USAF
DATE:
Addendum
TYPE:
None
SECOND REFERENCE:
ARF
LOCATION:
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.1) #20 001-007
LONG TITLE:
Letter Report - Proposed Aquifer Test of Well 61
AUTHOR:
James Soukup, George Swedberg, Roy F. Weston, In
RECIPIENT:
Mark McKenzie, Pease AFB
MK01\RPT:00628026.004\zone5rod.apc
09/09/94
DATE:
06 January 1993
TYPE:
Letter Report
SECOND REFERENCE:
Zone 1; Site 13
LOCATION:
ARF
#
MK01\RPT:00628026.004\zone5rod.apc
09/09/94
3.2
Sampling and Analysis Data /
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.2) #1 001-027
LONG TITLE:
Volatile Aromatics/Halocarbons by Modified 8010/
AUTHOR:
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
RECIPIENT:
Pease AFB
DATE:
Unknown
TYPE:
Data
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.2) #2 001-018
LONG TITLE:
Volatile Aromatics/Halocarbons by Modified 8010/
AUTHOR:
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
RECIPIENT:
Pease AFB
DATE:
Unknown
TYPE:
Data
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.2) #3 001-009
LONG TITLE:
CLP Volatile Organic Analysis, Case No. 15175, S
Analytical Results
AUTHOR:
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
RECIPIENT:
Pease AFB
DATE:
Unknown
TYPE:
Data
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.2) #4 001-037
LONG TITLE:
Pease AFB GWTP Summary Tables
AUTHOR:
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
RECIPIENT:
USAF
DATE:
Unknown
TYPE:
Data
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.2) #5 001-013
LONG TITLE:
Split Sampling Results Site 8 and Site 34
AUTHOR:
Richard Pease, NHDES
RECIPIENT:
Art Ditto, Pease AFB
DATE:
29 October 1990
TYPE:
Data
SECOND REFERENCE:
Site 8; Site 34
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.2) #6 001-013
LONG TITLE:
Preliminary Survey of Metal Concentrations in Ne
Report
AUTHOR:
New Hampshire Division of Public Health Services
Risk Assessment
RECIPIENT:
USAF
DATE:
May 1991
TYPE:
Data
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
MK01\RPT:00628026.004\zone5rod.apc
09/09/94
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.2) #7 001-D1
LONG TITLE:
Background Soluble Metals Concentrations for Gro
AUTHOR:
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
RECIPIENT:
USAF
DATE:
20 November 1991
TYPE:
Letter Report
SECOND REFERENCE:
PEA (3.6)
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.2) #8 001-E.1
LONG TITLE:
Tolerance Limits for Background Soils at Pease A
AUTHOR:
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
RECIPIENT:
USAF
DATE:
17 April 1992
TYPE:
Letter Report
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.2) #9 001-014
LONG TITLE:
Continuance of IRP Site 16 Inspection
AUTHOR:
Arthur Ditto, RPM
U.S. Air Force/Pease AFB
RECIPIENT:
Johanna Hunter, RPM
USEPA, Region 1
and
Richard Pease, RPM
NHDES
DATE:
30 June 1992
TYPE:
Letter with Diagrams, Tables and Maps
SECOND REFERENCE:
Site 16, Building 410
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.2) #10 001-002
LONG TITLE:
Results of Background Surface Water/Sediment Loc
AUTHOR:
Arthur L. Ditto, RPM
U.S. Air Force/Pease AFB
RECIPIENT:
Johanna Hunter, RPM
U.S. EPA, Region 1
DATE:
19 August 1992
TYPE:
Letter
SECOND REFERENCE:
Knights Brook
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.2) #11 001-004
LONG TITLE:
Haven Well Test
AUTHOR:
James G. Spratt
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
RECIPIENT:
Mark McKenzie
U.S. Air Force/Pease AFB
DATE:
21 August 1992
TYPE:
Letter
SECOND REFERENCE:
Haven Well Aquifer
LOCATION:
ARF
MK01\RPT:00628026.004\zone5rod.apc
09/09/94
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.2) #12 001-052
LONG TITLE:
Maximum Detected Concentrations for Unfiltered G
NH
AUTHOR:
Lee dePersia
Task Manager
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
RECIPIENT:
Arthur Ditto, RPM
U.S. Air Force/Pease AFB
DATE:
25 August 1992
TYPE:
Letter with Attachments (Tables and Graphs)
SECOND REFERENCE:
Characterization of Inorganic Background Le
Pease AFB
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.2) #13 001-007
LONG TITLE:
Haven Well Pumping Test Data
AUTHOR:
Jim Spratt
Project Geologist
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
RECIPIENT:
Mark McKenzie
U.S. Air Force/Pease AFB
DATE:
16 September 1992
TYPE:
Letter with Tables
SECOND REFERENCE:
Haven Well (597)
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.2) #14 001-009
LONG TITLE:
Newington Water Quality Sampling on July 18, 199
on August 28, 1992 (NHDES Sample
#210239-210241
AUTHOR:
Scott Doane
Hydrogeologist
NHDES
RECIPIENT:
Wayne Wood
428 Newington Road
Newington, NH 03803
DATE:
21 September 1992
TYPE:
Letter with Chain of Custody and Tables
SECOND REFERENCE:
Bedrock Well Serving
428 Newington Road
Tax Map 51, Lot 09
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.2) #15 001-009
LONG TITLE:
Tissue Sample Letter Report for Great Bay, Bass
AUTHOR:
Lee R. dePersia
Task Manager
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
Through U.S. Air Force
RECIPIENT:
Johanna Hunter, RPM
U.S. EPA, Region 1
and
Richard Pease, RPM
NHDES
DATE:
9 October 1992
TYPE:
Routing Letters and Letter Report with Map and T
SECOND REFERENCE:
Great Bay, Bass Pond
McIntyre Brook
MK01\RPT:00628026.004\zone5rod.apc
09/09/94
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.2) #16 001-009
LONG TITLE:
Thomas Drinking Water Well Sample Analytical Res
AUTHOR:
Kenneth W. Teague, President
Analytics Environmental Laboratory, Inc.
Through U.S. Air Force/Arthur Ditto
RECIPIENT:
Evelyn Thomas
509 Newington Road
Newington, NH 03801
DATE:
23 November 1992
TYPE:
Transmittal Letters with Attachments (Tables, Qu
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
Artesian Well
at 509 Newington Rd.
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.2) #17 001-005
LONG TITLE:
Results of Sampling Frink Estate Well and Spring
AUTHOR:
USAF
RECIPIENT:
Peggy Lamson, Newington Board of Selectmen
DATE:
15 January 1993
TYPE:
Letter with Attachment
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF (Section 3.2 Binder)
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.2) #18 001-007
LONG TITLE:
Zone 1 Groundwater Model Calibration
AUTHOR:
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
RECIPIENT:
USAF
DATE:
17 May 1993
TYPE:
Letter Report
SECOND REFERENCE:
Zone 1
LOCATION:
ARF (Section 3.2 Binder)
#
MK01\RPT:00628026.004\zone5rod.apc
09/09/94
3.3
Work
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.3) #1 001-144
LONG TITLE:
"Work Plan for the Installation Restoration Prog
AUTHOR:
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
RECIPIENT:
EPA, NHDES
DATE:
August 1989
TYPE:
Work Plan
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.3) #2 001-019
LONG TITLE:
"Installation Restoration Program, Stage 3C, Tre
Sites 8 and 34"
AUTHOR:
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
RECIPIENT:
EPA, NHDES
DATE:
May 1991
TYPE:
Work Plan
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.3) #3 001-028
LONG TITLE:
"Installation Restoration Program, Stage 3C, Act
AUTHOR:
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
RECIPIENT:
EPA, NHDES
DATE:
May 1991
TYPE:
Operations Plan
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.3) #4 001-258
LONG TITLE:
"Installation Restoration Program, Stage 4 Work
AUTHOR:
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
RECIPIENT:
EPA, NHDES
DATE:
January 1991
TYPE:
Work Plan
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.3) #5 001-213
LONG TITLE:
"Work Plan for the Integrated Installation Resto
Labelled State 2 Work Plan"
AUTHOR:
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
RECIPIENT:
EPA, NHDES
DATE:
September 1987
TYPE:
Work Plan
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF, IR
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.3) #6 001-GL.2
LONG TITLE:
Installation Restoration Program, Stage 4 Work P
NH - Draft
AUTHOR:
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
RECIPIENT:
USAF
DATE:
September 1991
TYPE:
Addendum
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
MK01\RPT:00628026.004\zone5rod.apc
09/09/94
LOCATION:
ARF, IR
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.3) #7 001-G5
LONG TITLE:
Installation Restoration Program, Stage 4 Work P
Pease AFB, NH - Draft
AUTHOR:
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
RECIPIENT:
USAF
DATE:
March 1992
TYPE:
Addendum
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF, IR
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.3) #8 001-B4
LONG TITLE:
Installation Restoration Program, Stage 3C, Oper
- Draft
AUTHOR:
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
RECIPIENT:
USAF
DATE:
May 1991
TYPE:
Plan
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF, IR
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.3) #9 001-3.5
LONG TITLE:
Installation Restoration Program, Stage 4, Work
NH
AUTHOR:
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
RECIPIENT:
USAF
DATE:
June 1992
TYPE:
Addendum
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF, IR
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.3) #10 iii-R2
LONG TITLE:
Stage 4 Health and Safety Plan Addendum - Sectio
Test Pit and Drum Handling Procedures
AUTHOR:
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
RECIPIENT:
USAF
DATE:
22 June 1992
TYPE:
Addendum
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF, IR
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.3) #11 001-003
LONG TITLE:
Conversion of Well 06-608 to a Fractured Bedrock
AUTHOR:
Lee dePersia
Task Manager
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
RECIPIENT:
Arthur Ditto, RPM
U.S. Air Force/Pease AFB
DATE:
8 September 1992
TYPE:
Letter and Diagram
SECOND REFERENCE:
LF-6 and Well 06-608
LOCATION:
ARF, IR
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.3) #12 001-004
LONG TITLE:
Groundwater Modeling Process Outline
AUTHOR:
Lee dePersia
Task Manager
MK01\RPT:00628026.004\zone5rod.apc
09/09/94
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
Arthur Ditto, RPM
U.S. Air Force/Pease AFB
2 October 1992
Letter
SECOND REFERENCE:
Groundwater Modeling
LOCATION:
ARF, IR
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.3) #13 001-C.31
LONG TITLE:
Installation Restoration Program, Stage 5 Health
NH - Draft
AUTHOR:
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
RECIPIENT:
USAF
DATE:
October 1991
TYPE:
Health and Safety Plan
SECOND REFERENCE:
Groundwater Modeling
LOCATION:
ARF, IR
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.3) #14 001-036
LONG TITLE:
U.S. Air Force Installation Restoration Program
Design Work Plan DRAFT
AUTHOR:
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
RECIPIENT:
USAF
DATE:
April 1993
TYPE:
Work Plan
SECOND REFERENCE:
LF-5
LOCATION:
ARF, IR
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.3) #15 001-F
LONG TITLE:
U.S. Air Force Installation Restoration Program
Plan
AUTHOR:
USAF
RECIPIENT:
Pease AFB
DATE:
January 1994
TYPE:
Monitoring Plan
SECOND REFERENCE:
Groundwater Monitoring
LOCATION:
ARF (Zone 7 Shelf)
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.3) #16 001-4.1
LONG TITLE:
Work Plan to Evaluate the Sediments of McIntyre
Pease AFB, NH
AUTHOR:
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
RECIPIENT:
USAF
DATE:
October 27, 1993
TYPE:
Work Plan
SECOND REFERENCE:
McIntyre Brook; Flagstone Brook
LOCATION:
ARF (Section 3.3 Binder)
#
MK01\RPT:00628026.004\zone5rod.apc
09/09/94
3.4
Preliminary RI Field
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.4) #1 001-173
LONG TITLE:
"Interim Technical Report No. 1 for the Installa
2, Volume I"
AUTHOR:
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
RECIPIENT:
EPA, NHDES
DATE:
February 1988
TYPE:
Tecnical Report
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF, IR
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3,4) #2 001-147
LONG TITLE:
"Interim Technical Report No. 1 for the Installa
2, Volume II - Appendices"
AUTHOR:
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
RECIPIENT:
EPA, NHDES
DATE:
January 1988
TYPE:
Technical Report - Appendices
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF, IR
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.4) #3 001-214
LONG TITLE:
"Interim Technical Report No. 2 for the Installa
2, Volume I"
AUTHOR:
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
RECIPIENT:
EPA, NHDES
DATE:
August 1988
TYPE:
Technical Report
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF, IR
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.4) #4 001-696
LONG TITLE:
"Interim Technical Report No. 2 for the Installa
2, Volume II - Appendices (Sample
Tracking Information, Analytical Results)"
AUTHOR:
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
RECIPIENT:
EPA, NHDES
DATE:
August 1988
TYPE:
Technical Report - Appendices (Sample Tracking I
Results)
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF, IR
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.4) #5 001-838
LONG TITLE:
"Interim Technical Report No. 2 for the Installa
2, Volume III - Appendices (Analytical
Results)"
AUTHOR:
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
RECIPIENT:
EPA, NHDES
DATE:
August 1988
TYPE:
Technical Report - Appendices (Analytical Result
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF, IR
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.4) #6 001-722
LONG TITLE:
"Interim Technical Report No. 2 for the Installa
2, Volume IV - Appendices (Analytical
Results)"
AUTHOR:
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
RECIPIENT:
EPA, NHDES
MK01\RPT:00628026.004\zone5rod.apc
09/09/94
DATE:
August 1988
TYPE:
Technical Report - Appendices (Analytical Result
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF, IR
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.4) #7 001-289
LONG TITLE:
"Interim Technical Report No. 2 for the Installa
2, Volume V - Appendices (Field
Geological, Geotechnical, and Hydrological D
AUTHOR:
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
RECIPIENT:
EPA, NHDES
DATE:
August 1988
TYPE:
Technical Report - Appendices (Field Geological,
Hydrogeological Data)
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF, IR
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.4) #8 001-106
LONG TITLE:
"Interim Technical Report No. 3 for the Installa
2, Volume I"
AUTHOR:
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
RECIPIENT:
EPA, NHDES
DATE:
February 1989
TYPE:
Technical Report
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF, IR
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.4) #9 001-658
LONG TITLE:
"Interim Technical Report No. 3 for the Installa
2, Volume II - Appendices"
AUTHOR:
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
RECIPIENT:
EPA, NHDES
DATE:
February 1989
TYPE:
Technical Report - Appendices
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF, IR
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.4) #10 001-198
LONG TITLE:
"Interim Technical Report No. 4 for the Installa
2, Volume I"
AUTHOR:
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
RECIPIENT:
EPA, NHDES
DATE:
April 1989
TYPE:
Technical Report
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF, IR
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.4) #11 001-770
LONG TITLE:
"Interim Technical Report No. 4 for the Installa
2, Volume II - Appendices"
AUTHOR:
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
RECIPIENT:
EPA, NHDES
DATE:
April 1989
TYPE:
Technical Report - Appendices
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF, IR
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.4) #12 001-568
LONG TITLE:
"Interim Technical Report No. 4 for the Installa
2, Volume III - Appendices"
AUTHOR:
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
MK01\RPT:00628026.004\zone5rod.apc
09/09/94
RECIPIENT:
EPA, NHDES
DATE:
April 1989
TYPE:
Technical Report - Appendices
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF, IR
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.4) #13 001-770
LONG TITLE:
"Interim Technical Report No. 4 for the Installa
2, Volume IV - Appendices"
AUTHOR:
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
RECIPIENT:
EPA, NHDES
DATE:
April 1989
TYPE:
Technical Report - Appendices
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF, IR
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.4) #14 001-1,150
LONG TITLE:
"Interim Technical Report No. 4 for the Installa
2, Volume V - Appendices"
AUTHOR:
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
RECIPIENT:
EPA, NHDES
DATE:
April 1989
TYPE:
Technical Report - Appendices
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF, IR
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
2, Volume VI - Appendices"
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
#
PEA (3.4) #15 001-729
"Interim Technical Report No. 4 for the Installa
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
EPA, NHDES
April 1989
Technical Report - Appendices
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF, IR
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.4) #16 001-803
LONG TITLE:
"Interim Technical Report No. 4 for the Installa
2, Volume VII - Appendices"
AUTHOR:
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
RECIPIENT:
EPA, NHDES
DATE:
April 1989
TYPE:
Technical Report - Appendices
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF, IR
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.4) #17 001-251
LONG TITLE:
"Installation Restoration Program, Stage 2, Draf
AUTHOR:
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
RECIPIENT:
EPA, NHDES
DATE:
July 1990
TYPE:
Technical Report
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF, IR
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.4) #18 001-452
LONG TITLE:
"Installation Restoration Program, Stage 2, Draf
AUTHOR:
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
MK01\RPT:00628026.004\zone5rod.apc
09/09/94
RECIPIENT:
EPA, NHDES
DATE:
July 1990
TYPE:
Technical Report
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF, IR
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.4) #19 001-621
LONG TITLE:
"Installation Restoration Program, Stage 2, Draf
Volume I"
AUTHOR:
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
RECIPIENT:
EPA, NHDES
DATE:
July 1990
TYPE:
Technical Report - Appendices
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF, IR
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.4) #20 001-420
LONG TITLE:
"Installation Restoration Program, Stage 2, Draf
Volume II"
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
EPA, NHDES
July 1990
TYPE:
Technical Report - Appendices
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF, IR
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.4) #21 001-658
LONG TITLE:
"Installation Restoration Program, Stage 2, Draf
Volume III"
AUTHOR:
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
RECIPIENT:
EPA, NHDES
DATE:
July 1990
TYPE:
Technical Report - Appendices
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF, IR
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.4) #22 001-688
LONG TITLE:
"Installation Restoration Program, Stage 2, Draf
Volume IV"
AUTHOR:
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
RECIPIENT:
EPA, NHDES
DATE:
July 1990
TYPE:
Technical Report - Appendices
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF, IR
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.4) #23 001-261
LONG TITLE:
"Installation Restoration Program, Stage 2, Draf
Volume V"
AUTHOR:
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
RECIPIENT:
EPA, NHDES
DATE:
July 1990
TYPE:
Technical Report - Appendices
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF, IR
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.4) #24 001-340
LONG TITLE:
"Installation Restoration Program, Stage 2, Draf
Summary Analytical Tables"
AUTHOR:
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
MK01\RPT:00628026.004\zone5rod.apc
09/09/94
RECIPIENT:
EPA, NHDES
DATE:
July 1990
TYPE:
Technical Report - Appendices
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF, IR
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.4) #25 001-007
LONG TITLE:
Geophysical Survey Letter Report, Stage 3"
AUTHOR:
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
RECIPIENT:
EPA, NHDES
DATE:
19 October 1989
TYPE:
Letter Report
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.4) #26 001-006
LONG TITLE:
"Jet Engine Test Cell Letter Report"
AUTHOR:
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
RECIPIENT:
EPA, NHDES
DATE:
9 January 1990
TYPE:
Letter Report
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LONG TITLE:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.4) #27 001-014
LONG TITLE:
"Recovery Well Selection Letter Report:
AUTHOR:
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
RECIPIENT:
EPA, NHDES
DATE:
11 May 1990
TYPE:
Letter Report
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF
IRP Sit
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.4) #28 001-005
LONG TITLE:
"Geophysical Letter Report for the IRP Stage 3B,
32/36"
AUTHOR:
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
RECIPIENT:
EPA, NHDES
DATE:
17 August 1990
TYPE:
Letter Report
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.4) #29 001-011
LONG TITLE:
"Recovery Well Letter Report for Site 32/36"
AUTHOR:
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
RECIPIENT:
EPA, NHDES
DATE:
14 September 1990
TYPE:
Letter Report
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.4) #30 001-017
LONG TITLE:
"Recovery Well Selection Letter Report:
AUTHOR:
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
MK01\RPT:00628026.004\zone5rod.apc
09/09/94
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
EPA, NHDES
1 October 1990
IRP Sit
TYPE:
Letter Report
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.4) #31 001-007
LONG TITLE:
"Site 8 Follow-on Letter Report"
AUTHOR:
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
RECIPIENT:
EPA, NHDES
DATE:
9 October 1990
TYPE:
Letter Report
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.4) #32 001-338
LONG TITLE:
"Installation Restoration Program, Stage 3, Land
Summary"
AUTHOR:
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
RECIPIENT:
EPA, NHDES
DATE:
November 1990
TYPE:
Technical Report
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.4) #32 001-068
LONG TITLE:
"Installation Restoration Program, Stage 3 Site
Report"
AUTHOR:
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
RECIPIENT:
EPA, NHDES
DATE:
February 1991
TYPE:
Letter Report
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.4) #34 001-062
LONG TITLE:
"Installation Restoration Program, Stage 3, IRP
Letter Report"
AUTHOR:
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
RECIPIENT:
EPA, NHDES
DATE:
February 1991
TYPE:
Technical Report
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.4) #35 001-279
LONG TITLE:
"Installation Restoration Program, Stage 3C, Sit
IRP Sites 32/36"
AUTHOR:
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
RECIPIENT:
EPA, NHDES
DATE:
July 1991
TYPE:
Technical Report
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.4) #36 001LONG TITLE:
"Installation Restoration Program, Stage 3C, Sit
IRP Site 34"
AUTHOR:
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
MK01\RPT:00628026.004\zone5rod.apc
09/09/94
RECIPIENT:
EPA, NHDES
DATE:
July 1991
TYPE:
Technical Report
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF
NOTE:
NEED 2 COPIES FOR ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.4) #37 001LONG TITLE:
"Installation Restoration Program, Stage 3C, Sit
IRP Site 34 - Appendix"
AUTHOR:
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
RECIPIENT:
EPA, NHDES
DATE:
July 1991
TYPE:
Technical Report
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF
NOTE: NEED 2 COPIES FOR ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.4) #38 001-041
LONG TITLE:
Pease AFB Monitor Well Inventory and Inspection
AUTHOR:
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
RECIPIENT:
USAF
DATE:
7 August 1992
TYPE:
Report
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.4) #39 001-D
LONG TITLE:
Background Values for Soil, Groundwater, Surface
Pease Air Force Base
AUTHOR:
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
RECIPIENT:
USAF
DATE:
26 February 1993
TYPE:
Letter
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.4) #40 001-Map 6
LONG TITLE:
Off Base Well Inventory Letter Report for Pease
AUTHOR:
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
RECIPIENT:
USAF
DATE:
17 September 1992
TYPE:
Letter Report
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.4) #41 001-A
LONG TITLE:
Building 410 PCB Spill Letter Report
AUTHOR:
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
RECIPIENT:
USAF
DATE:
September 1993
TYPE:
Letter Report
SECOND REFERENCE:
Building 410
LOCATION:
ARF
#
MK01\RPT:00628026.004\zone5rod.apc
09/09/94
3.5
Remedial Investigati
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.5) #1 001-C8
LONG TITLE:
Installation Restoration Program, Stage 3, Pease
Leach Study Letter Report
AUTHOR:
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
RECIPIENT:
USAF
DATE:
14 February 1991
TYPE:
Letter Report
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.5) #2 001-G.4
LONG TITLE:
Installation Restoration Program, Stage 3C, Land
Pease AFB, NH Technical Report - Draft
Final
AUTHOR:
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
RECIPIENT:
USAF
DATE:
April 1992
TYPE:
Report
SECOND REFERENCE:
LF-5
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.5) #3 001-6.4.5
LONG TITLE:
Installation Restoration Program, Stage 3C, Land
Pease AFB, NH Figures - Draft Final
AUTHOR:
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
RECIPIENT:
USAF
DATE:
April 1992
TYPE:
Figures
SECOND REFERENCE:
LF-5
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.5) #4 001-F.154
LONG TITLE:
Installation Restoration Program, Stage 3C, Land
Pease AFB, NH Appendices A-F - Draft
Final
AUTHOR:
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
RECIPIENT:
USAF
DATE:
April 1992
TYPE:
Appendices
SECOND REFERENCE:
LF-5
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.5) #5 001-M.30
LONG TITLE:
Installation Restoration Program, Stage 3C, Land
Pease AFB, NH Appendices G, H, L and
M - Draft Final
AUTHOR:
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
RECIPIENT:
USAF
DATE:
April 1992
TYPE:
Appendices
SECOND REFERENCE:
LF-5
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.5) #6 001-K
LONG TITLE:
Installation Restoration Program, Stage 3C, Land
Pease AFB, NH Appendices I-K - Draft
Final
AUTHOR:
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
MK01\RPT:00628026.004\zone5rod.apc
09/09/94
RECIPIENT:
USAF
DATE:
April 1992
TYPE:
Appendices
SECOND REFERENCE:
LF-5
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.5) #7 001-5.2.1
LONG TITLE:
Installation Restoration Program, Stage 4 Site C
3, Pease AFB, NH Technical Report
AUTHOR:
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
RECIPIENT:
USAF
DATE:
May 1992
TYPE:
Report
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.5) #8 001-C
LONG TITLE:
Installation Restoration Program, Stage 4 Site C
3, Pease AFB, NH Appendices
AUTHOR:
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
RECIPIENT:
USAF
DATE:
May 1992
TYPE:
Appendices
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.5) #9 001-D
LONG TITLE:
Installation Restoration Program, Stage 4 Site C
Zone 4, Pease AFB, NH Appendices
AUTHOR:
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
RECIPIENT:
USAF
DATE:
May 1992
TYPE:
Appendices
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.5) #10 001-R29
LONG TITLE:
Installation Restoration Program, Stage 4 Site C
Zone 4, Pease AFB, NH Technical Report
AUTHOR:
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
RECIPIENT:
USAF
DATE:
May 1992
TYPE:
Report
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.5) #11 001-A.3
LONG TITLE:
Installation Restoration Program, Stage 3C, Jet
Source Area Remedial Investigation Pease
AFB, NH Technical Report - Draft Final
AUTHOR:
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
RECIPIENT:
USAF
DATE:
May 1992
TYPE:
Report
SECOND REFERENCE:
Site 34
LOCATION:
ARF
#
MK01\RPT:00628026.004\zone5rod.apc
09/09/94
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.5) #12 001-H.40
LONG TITLE:
Installation Restoration Program, Stage 3C, Jet
Source Area Remedial Investigation Pease
AFB, Appendices A-H, - Draft Final
AUTHOR:
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
RECIPIENT:
USAF
DATE:
May 1992
TYPE:
Appendices
SECOND REFERENCE:
Site 34
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.5) #13 001-1608
LONG TITLE:
Installation Restoration Program, Stage 3C, Jet
Source Area Remedial Investigation Pease
AFB, Appendices I-J,-Draft Final
AUTHOR:
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
RECIPIENT:
USAF
DATE:
May 1992
TYPE:
Appendices
SECOND REFERENCE:
Site 34
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.5) #14 001-M.16
LONG TITLE:
Installation Restoration Program, Stage 3C, Jet
Source Area Remedial Investigation, Pease
AFB, Appendices K-M,- Draft Final
AUTHOR:
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
RECIPIENT:
USAF
DATE:
May 1992
TYPE:
Appendices
SECOND REFERENCE:
Site 34
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.5) #15 001-6.4.1
LONG TITLE:
Installation Restoration Program, Stage 3C, Jet
Source Area Remedial Investigation, Pease
AFB, NH - Figures -Draft Final
AUTHOR:
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
RECIPIENT:
USAF
DATE:
May 1992
TYPE:
Figures
SECOND REFERENCE:
Site 34
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.5) #16 001-B.12
LONG TITLE:
Sampling Locations and Results Drainage Area Let
AUTHOR:
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
RECIPIENT:
USAF
DATE:
May 1992
TYPE:
Report
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.5) #17 001-6.4.1
LONG TITLE:
Installation Restoration Program, Stage 3C IRP S
Remedial Investigation, Pease AFB, NH, Figures - Draft Final
AUTHOR:
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
RECIPIENT:
USAF
DATE:
June 1992
MK01\RPT:00628026.004\zone5rod.apc
09/09/94
TYPE:
Figures
SECOND REFERENCE:
Site 32/36
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.5) #18 001-N
LONG TITLE:
Installation Restoration Program, Stage 3C, IRP
Remedial Investigation, Pease AFB, NH,
Appendices D, E, F, G, L, M and N - Draft Fi
AUTHOR:
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
RECIPIENT:
USAF
DATE:
June 1992
TYPE:
Appendices
SECOND REFERENCE:
Site 32/36
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.5) #19 001-C
LONG TITLE:
Installation Restoration Program, Stage 3C, IRP
Remedial Investigation, Pease AFB, NH
Appendices A-C - Draft Final
AUTHOR:
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
RECIPIENT:
USAF
DATE:
June 1992
TYPE:
Appendices
SECOND REFERENCE:
Site 32/36
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.5) #20 001-ACR.3
LONG TITLE:
Installation Restoration Program, Stage 3C, IRP
Remedial Investigation, Pease AFB, NH
Technical Report - Draft Final
AUTHOR:
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
RECIPIENT:
USAF
DATE:
June 1992
TYPE:
Report
SECOND REFERENCE:
Site 32/36
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.5) #21 001-C
LONG TITLE:
Installation Restoration Program, Stage 3C, IRP
Pease AFB, NH, Appendix C - Draft
AUTHOR:
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
RECIPIENT:
USAF
DATE:
July 1992
TYPE:
Appendix
SECOND REFERENCE:
Site 8
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.5) #22 001-G
LONG TITLE:
Installation Restoration Program, Stage 3C, IRP
Pease AFB, NH, Appendices D-G - Draft
AUTHOR:
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
RECIPIENT:
USAF
DATE:
July 1992
TYPE:
Appendices
SECOND REFERENCE:
Site 8
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.5) #23 001-K1
MK01\RPT:00628026.004\zone5rod.apc
09/09/94
LONG TITLE:
Installation Restoration Program, Stage 3C,
Pease AFB, NH, Appendix K, Part 1 of
2 -Draft
AUTHOR:
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
RECIPIENT:
USAF
DATE:
July 1992
TYPE:
Appendix
SECOND REFERENCE:
Site 8
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.5) #24 001-K2
LONG TITLE:
Installation Restoration Program, Stage 3C, IRP
Pease AFB, NH, Appendix K, Part 2 of
2 -Draft
AUTHOR:
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
RECIPIENT:
USAF
DATE:
July 1992
TYPE:
Appendix
SECOND REFERENCE:
Site 8
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.5) #25 001-I1
LONG TITLE:
Installation Restoration Program, Stage 3C, IRP
Pease AFB, NH, Appendices H-I1 - Draft
AUTHOR:
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
RECIPIENT:
USAF
DATE:
July 1992
TYPE:
Appendices
SECOND REFERENCE:
Site 8
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.5) #26 001-I2
LONG TITLE:
Installation Restoration Program, Stage 3C, IRP
Pease AFB, NH, Appendices H-I2 - Draft
AUTHOR:
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
RECIPIENT:
USAF
DATE:
July 1992
TYPE:
Appendix
SECOND REFERENCE:
Site 8
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.5) #27 001-0.31
LONG TITLE:
Installation Restoration Program, Stage 3C, IRP
Pease AFB, NH, Appendices L-O - Draft
AUTHOR:
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
RECIPIENT:
USAF
DATE:
July 1992
TYPE:
Appendices
SECOND REFERENCE:
Site 8
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.5) #28 001-J873
LONG TITLE:
Installation Restoration Program, Stage 3C, IRP
Pease AFB, NH, Appendix J, Part 1 of
4 - Draft
AUTHOR:
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
RECIPIENT:
USAF
DATE:
July 1992
TYPE:
Appendix
SECOND REFERENCE:
Site 8
LOCATION:
ARF
MK01\RPT:00628026.004\zone5rod.apc
09/09/94
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.5) #29 J874-J1752
LONG TITLE:
Installation Restoration Program, Stage 3C, IRP
Pease AFB, NH, Appendix J, Part 2 of
4 - Draft
AUTHOR:
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
RECIPIENT:
USAF
DATE:
July 1992
TYPE:
Appendix
SECOND REFERENCE:
Site 8
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.5) #30 J1753-J2661
LONG TITLE:
Installation Restoration Program, Stage 3C, IRP
Pease AFB, NH, Appendix J, Part 3 of
4 - Draft
AUTHOR:
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
RECIPIENT:
USAF
DATE:
July 1992
TYPE:
Appendix
SECOND REFERENCE:
Site 8
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.5) #31 J2662-J3221
LONG TITLE:
Installation Restoration Program, Stage 3C, IRP
Pease AFB, NH, Appendix J, Part 4 of
4 - Draft
AUTHOR:
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
RECIPIENT:
USAF
DATE:
July 1992
TYPE:
Appendix
SECOND REFERENCE:
Site 8
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.5) #32 001-B43
LONG TITLE:
Installation Restoration Program, Stage 4, No Fu
Document for IRP Site 3, Pease AFB, NH
AUTHOR:
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
RECIPIENT:
USAF
DATE:
September 1992
TYPE:
Decision Document
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.5) #33 001-3.1.1
LONG TITLE:
Installation Restoration Program, Stage 4, Site
Zone 1, Pease AFB, NH Technical Report Draft
AUTHOR:
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
RECIPIENT:
USAF
DATE:
October 1992
TYPE:
Report
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.5) #34 001-C
LONG TITLE:
Installation Restoration Program, Stage 4, Site
Zone 1, Pease AFB, NH Appendices A-C - Draft
MK01\RPT:00628026.004\zone5rod.apc
09/09/94
AUTHOR:
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
RECIPIENT:
USAF
DATE:
October 1992
TYPE:
Appendices
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.5) #35 001-ACR.1
LONG TITLE:
Installation Restoration Program, Stage 4, Site
Zone 2, Pease AFB, NH Text - Draft
AUTHOR:
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
RECIPIENT:
USAF
DATE:
October 1992
TYPE:
Report
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.5) #36 A-C
LONG TITLE:
Installation Restoration Program, Stage 4, Site
Zone 5, Pease AFB, NH Technical Report
and Appendices A-C - Draft
AUTHOR:
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
RECIPIENT:
USAF
DATE:
October 1992
TYPE:
Report
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.5) #37 D1-D2
LONG TITLE:
Installation Restoration Program, Stage 4, Site
Zone 5, Pease AFB, NH Appendix D Draft
AUTHOR:
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
RECIPIENT:
USAF
DATE:
October 1992
TYPE:
Appendices
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.5) #38 E-F
LONG TITLE:
Installation Restoration Program, Stage 4, Site
Zone 5, Pease AFB, NH Technical Report
and Appendices E-F - Draft
AUTHOR:
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
RECIPIENT:
USAF
DATE:
October 1992
TYPE:
Report
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.5) #39 001-L
LONG TITLE:
Installation Restoration Program, Stage 3C, IRP
Pease AFB, NH Appendix L - Draft Final
AUTHOR:
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
RECIPIENT:
USAF
DATE:
November 1992
TYPE:
Appendix
SECOND REFERENCE:
Site 8
LOCATION:
ARF
#
MK01\RPT:00628026.004\zone5rod.apc
09/09/94
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.5) #40 001-K.29
LONG TITLE:
Installation Restoration Program, Stage 3C, IRP
Pease AFB, NH Appendices B, C, D, G,
H, J and K - Draft Final
AUTHOR:
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
RECIPIENT:
USAF
DATE:
November 1992
TYPE:
Appendices
SECOND REFERENCE:
Site 8
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.5) #41 001-6.4.2
LONG TITLE:
Installation Restoration Program, Stage 3C, IRP
Pease AFB, NH Figures - Draft Final
AUTHOR:
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
RECIPIENT:
USAF
DATE:
November 1992
TYPE:
Figures
SECOND REFERENCE:
Site 8
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.5) #42 001-7.8
LONG TITLE:
Installation Restoration Program, Stage 3C, IRP
Pease AFB, NH, Technical Report - Draft
Final
AUTHOR:
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
RECIPIENT:
USAF
DATE:
November 1992
TYPE:
Report
SECOND REFERENCE:
Site 8
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.5) #43 001-126
LONG TITLE:
Haven Well Pumping Test Letter Report
AUTHOR:
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
RECIPIENT:
Jim Snyder, AFCEE/ESB, USAF
DATE:
8 January 1993
TYPE:
Transmittal Letter, Letter Report, Maps, Appendi
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF, IR
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.5) #44 001-Acr.5
LONG TITLE:
United States Air Force Installation Restoration
Zone 4 Remedial Investigation Report
Text - Draft Final
AUTHOR:
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
RECIPIENT:
USAF
DATE:
September 1993
TYPE:
Report
SECOND REFERENCE:
Zone 4
LOCATION:
ARF (Zone 4 Shelf)
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.5) #45 001-6.4.3
LONG TITLE:
United States Air Force Installation Restoration
Zone 4 Remedial Investigation ReportFigures-Draft Final
AUTHOR:
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
RECIPIENT:
USAF
DATE:
September 1993
TYPE:
Report
MK01\RPT:00628026.004\zone5rod.apc
09/09/94
SECOND REFERENCE:
Zone 4
LOCATION:
ARF (Zone 4 Shelf)
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.5) #46 001-I
LONG TITLE:
United States Air Force Installation Restoration
Zone 4 Remedial Investigation Report,
Appendices B, C, D, E, F, H, G and I - Draft
AUTHOR:
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
RECIPIENT:
USAF
DATE:
September 1993
TYPE:
Appendices
SECOND REFERENCE:
Zone 4
LOCATION:
ARF (Zone 4 Shelf)
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.5) #47 001-O
LONG TITLE:
United States Air Force Installation Restoration
Zone 4 Remedial Investigation Report,
Appendices J, L and O-Draft Final
AUTHOR:
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
RECIPIENT:
USAF
DATE:
September 1993
TYPE:
Appendices
SECOND REFERENCE:
Zone 4
LOCATION:
ARF (Zone 4 Shelf)
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.5) #48 001-K.1
LONG TITLE:
United States Air Force Installation Restoration
Zone 4 Remedial Investigation Report,
Appendix K, Part 1 of 2-Draft Final
AUTHOR:
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
RECIPIENT:
USAF
DATE:
September 1993
TYPE:
Appendices
SECOND REFERENCE:
Zone 4
LOCATION:
ARF (Zone 4 Shelf)
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.5) #49 001-K.2
LONG TITLE:
Untied States Air Force Installation Restoration
Zone 4 Remedial Investigation Report,
Appendix K Part 2 of 2-Draft Final
AUTHOR:
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
RECIPIENT:
USAF
DATE:
September 1993
TYPE:
Appendix
SECOND REFERENCE:
Zone 4
LOCATION:
ARF (Zone 4 Shelf)
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.5) #50 001-O
LONG TITLE:
United States Air Force Installation Restoration
Zone 4 Remedial Investigation Report,
Appendices M & N
AUTHOR:
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
RECIPIENT:
USAF
DATE:
March 1993
TYPE:
Appendices
SECOND REFERENCE:
Zone 4
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.5) #51 001-J.1
MK01\RPT:00628026.004\zone5rod.apc
09/09/94
LONG TITLE:
United States Air Force Installation Restora
Zone 4 Remedial Investigation Report,
Appendix J 1 of 4
AUTHOR:
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
RECIPIENT:
USAF
DATE:
March 1993
TYPE:
Appendix
SECOND REFERENCE:
Zone 4
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.5) #52 001-J.2
LONG TITLE:
United States Air Force Installation Restoration
Zone 4 Remedial Investigation Report,
Appendix J 2 of 4
AUTHOR:
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
RECIPIENT:
USAF
DATE:
March 1993
TYPE:
Appendix
SECOND REFERENCE:
Zone 4
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.5) #53 001-J.3
LONG TITLE:
United States Air Force Installation Restoration
Zone 4 Remedial Investigation Report,
Appendix J 3 of 4
AUTHOR:
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
RECIPIENT:
USAF
DATE:
March 1993
TYPE:
Appendix
SECOND REFERENCE:
Zone 4
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.5) #54 001-J.4
LONG TITLE:
United States Air Force Installation Restoration
Zone 4 Remedial Investigation Report,
Appendix J 4 of 4
AUTHOR:
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
RECIPIENT:
USAF
DATE:
March 1993
TYPE:
Appendix
SECOND REFERENCE:
Zone 4
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.5) #55 001-Acr.4
LONG TITLE:
U.S. Air Force Installation Restoration Program,
Remedial Investigation Report Text
DRAFT FINAL
AUTHOR:
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
RECIPIENT:
USAF
DATE:
August 1993
TYPE:
Report
SECOND REFERENCE:
Zone 5
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.5) #56 001-Plate 8
LONG TITLE:
U.S. Air Force Installation Restoration Program,
Investigation Report Figures DRAFT
FINAL
AUTHOR:
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
RECIPIENT:
USAF
DATE:
August 1993
MK01\RPT:00628026.004\zone5rod.apc
09/09/94
TYPE:
Figures
SECOND REFERENCE:
Zone 5
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.5) #57 001-C
LONG TITLE:
Installation Restoration Program, Stage 4 IRP Zo
Pease Air Force Base, NH 03803,
Appendices A, B & C
AUTHOR:
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
RECIPIENT:
USAF
DATE:
February 1993
TYPE:
Appendices
SECOND REFERENCE:
Zone 5
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.5) #58 001-L.6-2
LONG TITLE:
U.S. Air Force Installation Restoration Program
Investigation Report Appendices B, D, E
F, G and L DRAFT FINAL
AUTHOR:
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
RECIPIENT:
USAF
DATE:
August 1993
TYPE:
Appendices
SECOND REFERENCE:
Zone 5
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.5) #59 001-I
LONG TITLE:
U.S. Air Force Installation Restoration Program
Investigation Report Appendices H and I
DRAFT FINAL
AUTHOR:
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
RECIPIENT:
USAF
DATE:
August 1993
TYPE:
Appendices
SECOND REFERENCE:
Zone 5
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.5) #60 001-K
LONG TITLE:
U.S. Air Force Installation Restoration Program
Investigation Report Appendices J and K
DRAFT FINAL
AUTHOR:
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
RECIPIENT:
USAF
DATE:
August 1993
TYPE:
Appendices
SECOND REFERENCE:
Zone 5
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.5) #61 001-J.2
LONG TITLE:
Installation Restoration Program, Stage 4 IRP Zo
Pease Air Force Base, NH 03803,
Appendices J Part 2 of 3
AUTHOR:
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
RECIPIENT:
USAF
DATE:
February 1993
TYPE:
Appendix
SECOND REFERENCE:
Zone 5
LOCATION:
ARF
#
MK01\RPT:00628026.004\zone5rod.apc
09/09/94
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.5) #62 001-J.3
LONG TITLE:
Installation Restoration Program, Stage 4 IRP Zo
Pease Air Force Base, NH 03803,
Appendices J Part 3 of 3
AUTHOR:
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
RECIPIENT:
USAF
DATE:
February 1993
TYPE:
Appendix
SECOND REFERENCE:
Zone 5
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.5) #63 001-M
LONG TITLE:
Installation Restoration Program, Stage 4 IRP Zo
Pease Air Force Base, NH 03803,
Appendices K, L & M
AUTHOR:
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
RECIPIENT:
USAF
DATE:
February 1993
TYPE:
Appendices
SECOND REFERENCE:
Zone 5
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.5) #64 001-N
LONG TITLE:
Installation Restoration Program, Stage 4 IRP Zo
Pease Air Force Base, NH 03803,
Appendix N
AUTHOR:
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
RECIPIENT:
USAF
DATE:
February 1993
TYPE:
Appendix
SECOND REFERENCE:
Zone 5
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.5) #65 001-ACR.4
LONG TITLE:
U.S. Air Force Installation Restoration Program
Investigation Report Text-DRAFT FINAL
AUTHOR:
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
RECIPIENT:
USAF
DATE:
October 1993
TYPE:
Report
SECOND REFERENCE:
Zone 1
LOCATION:
ARF (Zone 1 Shelf)
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.5) #66 001-6.4-4
LONG TITLE:
U.S. Air Force Installation Restoration Program
Investigation Report Figures-DRAFT
FINAL
AUTHOR:
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
RECIPIENT:
USAF
DATE:
October 1993
TYPE:
Figures
SECOND REFERENCE:
Zone 1
LOCATION:
ARF (Zone 1 Shelf)
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.5) #67 001-F
LONG TITLE:
U.S. Air Force Installation Restoration Program
Investigation Report Appendices A, B, C
D, E and F-DRAFT FINAL
AUTHOR:
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
RECIPIENT:
USAF
DATE:
October 1993
MK01\RPT:00628026.004\zone5rod.apc
09/09/94
TYPE:
Appendices
SECOND REFERENCE:
Zone 1
LOCATION:
ARF (Zone 1 Shelf)
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.5) #68 001-04/19/93
LONG TITLE:
U.S. Air Force Installation Restoration Program
Investigation Report Appendix B DRAFT
FINAL
AUTHOR:
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
RECIPIENT:
USAF
DATE:
April 1993 (Draft Final used to supplement)
TYPE:
Appendix
SECOND REFERENCE:
Zone 1
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.5) #69 001-L
LONG TITLE:
U.S. Air Force Installation Restoration Program
Investigation Report Appendices G, H, I,
and L-DRAFT FINAL
AUTHOR:
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
RECIPIENT:
USAF
DATE:
October 1993
TYPE:
Appendices
SECOND REFERENCE:
Zone 1
LOCATION:
ARF (Zone 1 Shelf)
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.5) #70 001-H-4.95
LONG TITLE:
U.S. Air Force Installation Restoration Program
Investigation Report Appendix H Part 1 of
2-DRAFT
AUTHOR:
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
RECIPIENT:
USAF
DATE:
April 1993 (also used to supplement 10/93 DRAFT
TYPE:
Appendix
SECOND REFERENCE:
Zone 1
LOCATION:
ARF (Zone 1 Shelf 1)
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.5) #71 001-H
LONG TITLE:
U.S. Air Force Installation Restoration Program
Investigation Report Appendix H Part 2 of
2-DRAFT
AUTHOR:
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
RECIPIENT:
USAF
DATE:
April 1993 (also used to supplement 10/93 DRAFT
TYPE:
Appendix
SECOND REFERENCE:
Zone 1
LOCATION:
ARF (Zone 1 Shelf)
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.5) #72 001-2853
LONG TITLE:
U.S. Air Force Installation Restoration Program
Investigation Report Appendix I DRAFT
AUTHOR:
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
RECIPIENT:
USAF
DATE:
April 1993 (also used as part of 10/93 DRAFT FIN
TYPE:
Appendix
SECOND REFERENCE:
Zone 1
LOCATION:
ARF (Zone 1 Shelf)
#
MK01\RPT:00628026.004\zone5rod.apc
09/09/94
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.5) #73 001-J
LONG TITLE:
U.S. Air Force Installation Restoration Program
Investigation Report Appendix J-DRAFT
FINAL
AUTHOR:
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
RECIPIENT:
USAF
DATE:
October 1993
TYPE:
Appendix
SECOND REFERENCE:
Zone 1
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.5) #74 001-K.6-6
LONG TITLE:
U.S. Air Force Installation Restoration Program
Investigation Report Appendix K-DRAFT
FINAL
AUTHOR:
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
RECIPIENT:
USAF
DATE:
October 1993
TYPE:
Appendix
SECOND REFERENCE:
Zone 1
LOCATION:
ARF (Zone 1 Shelf)
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.5) #75 001-L
LONG TITLE:
U.S. Air Force Installation Restoration Program
Investigation Report Appendix L DRAFT
AUTHOR:
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
RECIPIENT:
USAF
DATE:
April 1993 (also used to supplement 10/93 DRAFT
TYPE:
Appendix
SECOND REFERENCE:
Zone 1
LOCATION:
ARF (Zone 1 Shelf)
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.5) #76 001-Acr.4
LONG TITLE:
U.S. Air Force Installation Restoration Program
Investigation Report Text-DRAFT FINAL
AUTHOR:
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
RECIPIENT:
USAF
DATE:
November 1993
TYPE:
Report
SECOND REFERENCE:
Zone 2
LOCATION:
ARF (Zone 2 Shelf)
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.5) #77 001-6.4-3
LONG TITLE:
U.S. Air Force Installation Restoration Program
Investigation Report Figures-DRAFT
FINAL
AUTHOR:
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
RECIPIENT:
USAF
DATE:
November 1993
TYPE:
Figures
SECOND REFERENCE:
Zone 2
LOCATION:
ARF (Zone 2 Shelf)
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.5) #78 001-G
LONG TITLE:
U.S. Air Force Installation Restoration Program
Investigation Report Appendices A, C, D,
E, F and G-DRAFT FINAL
AUTHOR:
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
RECIPIENT:
USAF
DATE:
November 1993
MK01\RPT:00628026.004\zone5rod.apc
09/09/94
TYPE:
Appendices
SECOND REFERENCE:
Zone 2
LOCATION:
ARF (Zone 2 Shelf)
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.5) #79 001-500
LONG TITLE:
U.S. Air Force Installation Restoration Program
Investigation Report Appendix B Part 1 of
2-DRAFT FINAL
AUTHOR:
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
RECIPIENT:
USAF
DATE:
November 1993
TYPE:
Appendix
SECOND REFERENCE:
Zone 2
LOCATION:
ARF (Zone 2 Shelf)
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.5) #80 001-500
LONG TITLE:
U.S. Air Force Installation Restoration Program
Investigation Report Appendix B Part 2 of
2-DRAFT FINAL
AUTHOR:
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
RECIPIENT:
USAF
DATE:
November 1993
TYPE:
Appendices
SECOND REFERENCE:
Zone 2
LOCATION:
ARF (Zone 2 Shelf)
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.5) #81 001-475
LONG TITLE:
U.S. Air Force Installation Restoration Program,
Investigation Report Appendix H-DRAFT
FINAL
AUTHOR:
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
RECIPIENT:
USAF
DATE:
November 1993
TYPE:
Appendix
SECOND REFERENCE:
Zone 2
LOCATION:
ARF (Zone 2 Shelf)
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.5) #82 001-I.1
LONG TITLE:
U.S. Air Force Installation Restoration Program,
Investigation Report Appendix I, Part
1 of 3-DRAFT FINAL
AUTHOR:
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
RECIPIENT:
USAF
DATE:
November 1993
TYPE:
Appendices
SECOND REFERENCE:
Zone 2
LOCATION:
ARF (Zone 2 Shelf)
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.5) #83 001-I.2
LONG TITLE:
U.S. Air Force Installation Restoration Program,
Investigation Report Appendix I Part 2
of 3-DRAFT FINAL
AUTHOR:
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
RECIPIENT:
USAF
DATE:
November 1993
TYPE:
Appendices
SECOND REFERENCE:
Zone 2
LOCATION:
ARF
#
MK01\RPT:00628026.004\zone5rod.apc
09/09/94
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.5) #84 001-I.3
LONG TITLE:
U.S. Air Force Installation Restoration Program,
Investigation Report Appendix I Part 3
of 3-DRAFT FINAL
AUTHOR:
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
RECIPIENT:
USAF
DATE:
November 1993
TYPE:
Appendix
SECOND REFERENCE:
Zone 2
LOCATION:
ARF (Zone 2 Shelf)
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.5) #85 001-J.1
LONG TITLE:
U.S. Air Force Installation Restoration Program,
Investigation Report Appendix J Part 1
of 2-DRAFT FINAL
AUTHOR:
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
RECIPIENT:
USAF
DATE:
November 1993
TYPE:
Appendix
SECOND REFERENCE:
Zone 2
LOCATION:
ARF (Zone 2 Shelf)
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.5) #86 001-J.2
LONG TITLE:
U.S. Air Force Installation Restoration Program,
Investigation Report Appendix J Part 2
of 2-DRAFT FINAL
AUTHOR:
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
RECIPIENT:
USAF
DATE:
November 1993
TYPE:
Appendix
SECOND REFERENCE:
Zone 2
LOCATION:
ARF (Zone 2 Shelf)
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.5) #86A 001-K.7-4
LONG TITLE:
U.S. Air Force Installation Restoration Program,
Investigation Report Appendix K-DRAFT
FINAL
AUTHOR:
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
RECIPIENT:
USAF
DATE:
November 1993
TYPE:
Report
SECOND REFERENCE:
Zone 2
LOCATION:
ARF (Zone 2 Shelf)
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.5) #86B 001-300
LONG TITLE:
U.S. Air Force Installation Restoration Program,
Investigation Report Appendices L, M,
and N-DRAFT FINAL
AUTHOR:
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
RECIPIENT:
USAF
DATE:
November 1993
TYPE:
Report
SECOND REFERENCE:
Zone 2
LOCATION:
ARF (Zone 2 Shelf)
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.5) #86C 001-I.1
LONG TITLE:
U.S. Air Force Installation Restoration Program,
Investigation Report Appendix I, Part 1
of 2-DRAFT
AUTHOR:
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
RECIPIENT:
USAF
MK01\RPT:00628026.004\zone5rod.apc
09/09/94
DATE:
May 1993
TYPE:
Appendix
SECOND REFERENCE:
Zone 2
LOCATION:
ARF (Zone 2 Shelf)
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.5) #86D 001-I.2
LONG TITLE:
U.S. Air Force Installation Restoration Program,
Investigation Report Appendix I, Part 2
of 2-DRAFT
AUTHOR:
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
RECIPIENT:
USAF
DATE:
May 1993
TYPE:
Appendix
SECOND REFERENCE:
Zone 2
LOCATION:
ARF (Zone 2 Shelf)
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.5) #87 001-ACR.4
LONG TITLE:
U.S. Air Force Installation Restoration Program,
Investigation Report Text-DRAFT FINAL
AUTHOR:
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
RECIPIENT:
USAF
DATE:
September 1993
TYPE:
Report
SECOND REFERENCE:
Zone 3
LOCATION:
ARF (Zone 3 Shelf)
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.5) #88 001-6.390
LONG TITLE:
U.S. Air Force Installation Restoration Program,
Investigation Report Section 6 TablesDRAFT FINAL
AUTHOR:
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
RECIPIENT:
USAF
DATE:
September 1993
TYPE:
Tables
SECOND REFERENCE:
Zone 3
LOCATION:
ARF (Zone 3 Shelf)
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.5) #89 001-F.94
LONG TITLE:
U.S. Air Force Installation Restoration Program,
Investigation Report figures-DRAFT
FINAL
AUTHOR:
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
RECIPIENT:
USAF
DATE:
September 1993
TYPE:
Figures
SECOND REFERENCE:
Zone 3
LOCATION:
ARF (Zone 3 Shelf)
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.5) #90 001-D.26
LONG TITLE:
U.S. Air Force Installation Restoration Program,
Investigation Report Appendices A, C and
D-DRAFT FINAL
AUTHOR:
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
RECIPIENT:
USAF
DATE:
September 1993
TYPE:
Appendices
SECOND REFERENCE:
Zone 3
LOCATION:
ARF (Zone 3 Shelf)
#
MK01\RPT:00628026.004\zone5rod.apc
09/09/94
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.5) #91 001-B
LONG TITLE:
U.S. Air Force Installation Restoration Program,
Investigation Report Appendix B Part 1
of 2 DRAFT
AUTHOR:
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
RECIPIENT:
USAF
DATE:
April 1993
TYPE:
Appendix
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
ARF
Zone 3
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.5) #92 001-B
LONG TITLE:
U.S. Air Force Installation Restoration Program,
Investigation Report Appendix B Part 2
of 2 DRAFT
AUTHOR:
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
RECIPIENT:
USAF
DATE:
April 1993
TYPE:
Appendix
SECOND REFERENCE:
Zone 3
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.5) #93 001-1000
LONG TITLE:
U.S. Air Force Installation Restoration Program,
Investigation Report Appendices B, E,
F, G, L and M-DRAFT FINAL
AUTHOR:
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
RECIPIENT:
USAF
DATE:
September 1993
TYPE:
Appendices
SECOND REFERENCE:
Zone 3
LOCATION:
ARF (Zone 3 Shelf)
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.5) #94 001-H.4
LONG TITLE:
U.S. Air Force Installation Restoration Program,
Investigation Report Appendix H Part 1
of 3-DRAFT FINAL
AUTHOR:
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
RECIPIENT:
USAF
DATE:
September 1993 (same as DRAFT 4/93)
TYPE:
Appendix
SECOND REFERENCE:
Zone 3
LOCATION:
ARF (Zone 3 Shelf)
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.5) #95 001-H
LONG TITLE:
U.S. Air Force Installation Restoration Program,
Investigation Report Appendix H Part 2
of 3-DRAFT FINAL
AUTHOR:
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
RECIPIENT:
USAF
DATE:
September 1993 (same as DRAFT 4/93)
TYPE:
Appendix
SECOND REFERENCE:
Zone 3
LOCATION:
ARF (Zone 3 Shelf)
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.5) #96 001-H
LONG TITLE:
U.S. Air Force Installation Restoration Program,
Investigation Report Appendix H Part 3
of 3-DRAFT FINAL
AUTHOR:
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
RECIPIENT:
USAF
MK01\RPT:00628026.004\zone5rod.apc
09/09/94
DATE:
September 1993 (same as DRAFT 4/93)
TYPE:
Appendix
SECOND REFERENCE:
Zone 3
LOCATION:
ARF (Zone 3 Shelf)
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.5) #97 001-2388
LONG TITLE:
U.S. Air Force Installation Restoration Program,
Investigation Report Appendix I Part 1
of 2-DRAFT
AUTHOR:
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
RECIPIENT:
USAF
DATE:
April 1993
TYPE:
Appendix
SECOND REFERENCE:
Zone 3
LOCATION:
ARF (Zone 3 Shelf)
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.5) #98 2424-5307
LONG TITLE:
U.S. Air Force Installation Restoration Program,
Investigation Report Appendix I Part 2
of 2-DRAFT
AUTHOR:
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
RECIPIENT:
USAF
DATE:
April 1993
TYPE:
Appendix
SECOND REFERENCE:
Zone 3
LOCATION:
ARF (Zone 3 Shelf)
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.5) #99 001-J.1
LONG TITLE:
U.S. Air Force Installation Restoration Program,
Investigation Report Appendices I and J
Part 1 of 2-DRAFT FINAL
AUTHOR:
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
RECIPIENT:
USAF
DATE:
September 1993
TYPE:
Appendix
SECOND REFERENCE:
Zone 3
LOCATION:
ARF (Zone 3 Shelf)
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.5) #100 001-J.2
LONG TITLE:
U.S. Air Force Installation Restoration Program,
Investigation Report Appendix J Part 2
of 2-DRAFT FINAL
AUTHOR:
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
RECIPIENT:
USAF
DATE:
September 1993
TYPE:
Appendix
SECOND REFERENCE:
Zone 3
LOCATION:
ARF (Zone 3 Shelf)
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.5) #101 001-K.7
LONG TITLE:
U.S. Air Force Installation Restoration Program,
Investigation Report Appendix K-DRAFT
FINAL
AUTHOR:
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
RECIPIENT:
USAF
DATE:
September 1993
TYPE:
Appendix
SECOND REFERENCE:
Zone 3
LOCATION:
ARF (Zone 3 Shelf)
#
MK01\RPT:00628026.004\zone5rod.apc
09/09/94
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.5) #102 001-R.7
LONG TITLE:
U.S. Air Force Installation Restoration Program,
Investigation Report DRAFT Section
6
AUTHOR:
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
RECIPIENT:
USAF
DATE:
April 1993
TYPE:
Report
SECOND REFERENCE:
Zone 4
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.5) #103 001-L.7
LONG TITLE:
U.S. Air Force Installation Restoration Program,
Investigation Report
DRAFT Appendix L
AUTHOR:
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
RECIPIENT:
USAF
DATE:
April 1993
TYPE:
Appendix
SECOND REFERENCE:
Zone 4
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.5) #104 001-G.1
LONG TITLE:
U.S. Air Force Installation Restoration Program,
Remedial Design Excavation/Relocation Plan for
Waste, Soil and Sediment Text DRAFT (90% Sub
AUTHOR:
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
RECIPIENT:
USAF
DATE:
July 1993
TYPE:
Remedial Design
SECOND REFERENCE:
LF-5
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.5) #105 001-13250-8
LONG TITLE:
U.S. Air Force Installation Restoration Program,
Excavation/Relocation Plan for Waste,
Soil and Sediment Landfills 2, 4 and 5 Techn
Submittal)
AUTHOR:
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
RECIPIENT:
USAF
DATE:
July 1993
TYPE:
Specifications
SECOND REFERENCE:
LF-2, LF-4, LF-5
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.5) #106 ES.1-ACR-3
LONG TITLE:
U.S. Air Force Installation Restoration Program,
known as Site 45, Old Engine Test Stand)
Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study-Tex
AUTHOR:
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
RECIPIENT:
USAF
DATE:
September 1993
TYPE:
Report
SECOND REFERENCE:
Zone 7, Site 45
LOCATION:
ARF, PEA (4.2) #36 ES-1-ACR.3 on Zone 7 Shelf-Fi
Report
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.5) #107 001-9.2-6
LONG TITLE:
U.S. Air Force Installation Restoration Program,
known as Site 45, Old Engine Test Stand)
Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study-Fig
AUTHOR:
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
MK01\RPT:00628026.004\zone5rod.apc
09/09/94
RECIPIENT:
USAF
DATE:
September 1993
TYPE:
Figures
SECOND REFERENCE:
Zone 7, Site 45
LOCATION:
ARF, PEA (4.2) #37 001-9.2-6 on Zone 7 Shelf-Fil
Report
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.5) #108 001-F
LONG TITLE:
U.S. Air Force Installation Restoration Program,
known as Site 45, Old Engine Test Stand)
Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study-App
AUTHOR:
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
RECIPIENT:
USAF
DATE:
September 1993
TYPE:
Appendices
SECOND REFERENCE:
Zone 7, Site 45
LOCATION:
ARF, PEA (4.2) #38 001-F on Zone 7 Shelf-Filed a
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.5) #109 001-J (K.6-1)
LONG TITLE:
U.S. Air Force Installation Restoration Program,
known as Site 45, Old Engine Test Stand)
Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study-App
AUTHOR:
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
RECIPIENT:
USAF
DATE:
September 1993
TYPE:
Appendices
SECOND REFERENCE:
Zone 7, Site 45
LOCATION:
ARF, PEA (4.2) #39 001-J (K.6-1) on Zone 7 Shelf
Report
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.5) #110 ES.1-ACR.3
LONG TITLE:
U.S. Air Force Installation Restoration Program,
known as Site 45, Old Engine Test Stand)
Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Sudy-Appe
AUTHOR:
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
RECIPIENT:
USAF
DATE:
September 1993
TYPE:
Appendix
SECOND REFERENCE:
Zone 7, Site 45
LOCATION:
ARF, PEA (4.2) #40 001-700 on Zone 7 Shelf-Filed
Report
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.5) #111 L.1-Q.2
LONG TITLE:
U.S. Air Force Installation Restoration Program,
known as Site 45, Old Engine Test Stand)
Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study-App
AUTHOR:
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
RECIPIENT:
USAF
DATE:
September 1993
TYPE:
Appendices
SECOND REFERENCE:
Zone 7, Site 45
LOCATION:
ARF, PEA (4.2) #41 L.1-Q.2 on Zone 7 Shelf-Filed
Report
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.5) 112 001-K.5-2
LONG TITLE:
U.S. Air Force Installation Restoration Program,
Brook/Lower Newfields Ditch Remedial
Investigation/Feasibility Study-DRAFT FINAL
AUTHOR:
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
RECIPIENT:
USAF
DATE:
November 1993
TYPE:
Report
SECOND REFERENCE:
Zone 3
LOCATION:
ARF, PEA (4.2) #24001-K.5-2 on Zone 3 Shelf-File
Report
MK01\RPT:00628026.004\zone5rod.apc
09/09/94
3.6
RI Correspondence
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.6) #1 001-001
LONG TITLE:
"Comments Regarding the Work Plan for the IRP St
AUTHOR:
State of New Hampshire, Department of Environmen
RECIPIENT:
Air Force
DATE:
27 July 1987
TYPE:
Comments Serving 3.4 (Preliminary RI Field Work
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.6) #2 001-006
LONG TITLE:
"Letter Regarding IRP, Stage 2"
AUTHOR:
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
RECIPIENT:
Air Force
DATE:
11 November 1987
TYPE:
Letter Serving 3.4 (Preliminary RI Field Work Re
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.6) #3 001-001
LONG TITLE:
"Letter Stating Conformance of the Stage 2, Qual
With Air Force IRP Practices"
AUTHOR:
State of New Hampshire, Department of Environmen
RECIPIENT:
Air Force
DATE:
12 November 1987
TYPE:
Letter Serving 3.4 (Preliminary RI Field Work Re
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.6) #4 001-001
LONG TITLE:
"Letter Regarding the Suspect Fire Training Area
AUTHOR:
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
RECIPIENT:
Air Force
DATE:
16 December 1987
TYPE:
Letter Serving 3.4 (Preliminary RI Field Work Re
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.6) #5 001-003
LONG TITLE:
"Letter Concerning Short-Duration Pumping Tests
Water Supply Wells"
AUTHOR:
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
RECIPIENT:
Air Force
DATE:
14 June 1988
TYPE:
Letter Serving 3.4 (Preliminary RI Field Work Re
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.6) #6 001-001
LONG TITLE:
"Letter Concerning Drilling Program"
AUTHOR:
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
RECIPIENT:
Air Force
DATE:
20 October 1988
TYPE:
Letter Serving 3.4 (Preliminary RI Field Work Re
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
MK01\RPT:00628026.004\zone5rod.apc
09/09/94
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.6) #7 001-002
LONG TITLE:
"Review of Work Plan Removal of Source Contamina
AUTHOR:
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
RECIPIENT:
Air Force
DATE:
8 March 1989
TYPE:
Letter Serving 3.4 (Preliminary RI Field Work Re
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.6) #8 001-001
LONG TITLE:
"Letter Regarding Technical Review of Building 2
and Off-Site Contaminant Migration
AUTHOR:
State of New Hampshire, Department of Environmen
RECIPIENT:
Air Force
DATE:
3 May 1989
TYPE:
Letter/Comments Serving 3.4 (Preliminary RI Fiel
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.6) #9 001-002
LONG TITLE:
"Letter Concerning Disposal of Drill Cuttings Fr
AUTHOR:
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
RECIPIENT:
Air Force
DATE:
2 October 1989
TYPE:
Letter Serving 3.4 (Preliminary RI Field Work Re
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
#
PEA (3.6) #10 001-003
"Review Comments on the Phase II, Stage 2 IRP, D
State of New Hampshire, Department of Environmen
Air Force
28 February 1990
Review Comments on Phase II, Stage 2, IRP Servin
Work Reports)
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
ARF
None
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.6) #11 001-011
LONG TITLE:
"Review Comments for the Pease AFB, Phase II, St
Report"
AUTHOR:
U.S. EPA
RECIPIENT:
Air Force
DATE:
7 March 1990
TYPE:
Review Comments Serving 3.4 (Preliminary RI Fiel
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.6) #12 001-010
LONG TITLE:
"Review Comments Regarding the IRP, Stage 2 Draf
1989)"
AUTHOR:
U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic an
Administration
RECIPIENT:
Air Force via EPA
DATE:
7 March 1990
TYPE:
Review Comments Serving 3.4 (Preliminary RI Fiel
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
MK01\RPT:00628026.004\zone5rod.apc
09/09/94
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.6) #13 001-020
LONG TITLE:
"Review Comments to the IRP Stage 2 RI/FS Draft
AUTHOR:
Department of the Air Force
RECIPIENT:
Roy F. Weston, Inc./Air Force
DATE:
15 March 1990
TYPE:
Review Comments Serving 3.4 (Preliminary RI Fiel
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.6) #14 001-004
LONG TITLE:
"Sampling Data for Off-Site Sampling at Pease AF
AUTHOR:
State of New Hampshire, Water Supply and Polluti
RECIPIENT:
Air Force
DATE:
5 July 1990
TYPE:
Sampling Data
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.6) #15 001-010
LONG TITLE:
"Pease AFB, Site 8 Sampling Data"
AUTHOR:
State of New Hampshire, Department of Environmen
RECIPIENT:
Air Force, EPA
DATE:
September 1990
TYPE:
Sampling Data
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.6) #16 001-003
LONG TITLE:
"Off-Base Sampling at Pease AFB"
AUTHOR:
State of New Hampshire, Department of Environmen
RECIPIENT:
Air Force
DATE:
25 October 1990
TYPE:
Sampling Results
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.6) #17 001-013
LONG TITLE:
"Split Sampling Results, Site 8 and Site 34"
AUTHOR:
State of New Hampshire, Department of Environmen
RECIPIENT:
Air Force
DATE:
29 October 1990
TYPE:
Sampling Results
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.6) #18 001-065
LONG TITLE:
"Sampling Results from Pease AFB, Newington, Por
AUTHOR:
State of New Hampshire, Department of Environmen
RECIPIENT:
Air Force
DATE:
17 January 1991
TYPE:
Sampling Data
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
MK01\RPT:00628026.004\zone5rod.apc
09/09/94
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.6) #19 001-002
LONG TITLE:
"Installation Restoration Program (IRP) at Pease
AUTHOR:
Department of the Air Force
RECIPIENT:
Air Force
DATE:
8 March 1989
TYPE:
Memorandum - Pertaining to RI
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARP
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.6) #20 001-002
LONG TITLE:
"Work Plan for the IRP Stage 3 and ITR #4"
AUTHOR:
Department of the Air Force
RECIPIENT:
Air Force
DATE:
3 April 1989
TYPE:
Memorandum - Pertaining to RI
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.6) #21 001-007
LONG TITLE:
"Consolidated Comments to the IRP Stage 3 Work P
Base, NH"
AUTHOR:
Department of the Air Force
RECIPIENT:
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
DATE:
1 June 1989
TYPE:
Review Comments - Pertaining to RI
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.6) #22 001-001
LONG TITLE:
"Review Comments Regarding the Work Plan and QAP
AUTHOR:
State of New Hampshire, Department of Environmen
RECIPIENT:
Air Force
DATE:
16 June 1989
TYPE:
Review Comments - Pertaining to RI
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.6) #23 001-008
LONG TITLE:
"Stage 3 Work Plan - Response to Comments"
AUTHOR:
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
RECIPIENT:
Air Force
DATE:
29 June 1989
TYPE:
Response to Comments - Pertaining to RI
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.6) #24 001-008
LONG TITLE:
"Consolidated Comments to the IRP Stage 3 Qualit
(QAPP) for Pease Air Force Base, NH"
AUTHOR:
Department of the Air Force
RECIPIENT:
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
DATE:
29 June 1989
TYPE:
Review Comments - Pertaining to RI
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
MK01\RPT:00628026.004\zone5rod.apc
09/09/94
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.6) #25 001-009
LONG TITLE:
"Special Notification concerning the results of
Site 8"
AUTHOR:
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
RECIPIENT:
Air Force
DATE:
1 February 1990
TYPE:
Letter - Pertaining to RI
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.6) #26 001-002
LONG TITLE:
"Followup to Special Notification (1 February 19
samples from Well 562A at Site 8"
AUTHOR:
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
RECIPIENT:
Air Force
DATE:
16 February 1990
TYPE:
Letter - Pertaining to RI
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.6) #27 001-002
LONG TITLE:
"Letter summarizing discussions between Roy F. W
Hampshire Department of Environmental
Services concerning on-site handling and dis
drilling, development, purging and
pump testing of wells"
AUTHOR:
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
RECIPIENT:
Air Force
DATE:
12 March 1990
TYPE:
Letter - Pertaining to 3.4
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.6) #28 001-004
LONG TITLE:
"Letter regarding recent and scheduled future ac
area"
AUTHOR:
Department of the Air Force
RECIPIENT:
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
DATE:
10 May 1990
TYPE:
Letter - Pertaining to RI
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.6) #29 001-007
LONG TITLE:
"Review comments on the Stage 3 Work Plan for th
AUTHOR:
U.S. EPA
RECIPIENT:
Air Force
DATE:
7 June 1990
TYPE:
Review Comments - Pertaining to RI
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.6) #30 001-002
LONG TITLE:
"Letter concerning proposed drilling locations,
AUTHOR:
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
RECIPIENT:
Air Force
DATE:
12 June 1990
MK01\RPT:00628026.004\zone5rod.apc
09/09/94
TYPE:
Letter - Pertaining to RI
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.6) #31 001-002
LONG TITLE:
"Letter regarding well installation modification
AUTHOR:
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
RECIPIENT:
Air Force
DATE:
5 July 1990
TYPE:
Letter
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.6) #32 001-004
LONG TITLE:
"Letter regarding procedures used in installing
632"
AUTHOR:
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
RECIPIENT:
Air Force
DATE:
8 August 1990
TYPE:
Letter
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.6) #33 001-001
LONG TITLE:
"Letter regarding June 1990 Pickering Spring sam
AUTHOR:
State of New Hampshire, Deparment of Environment
RECIPIENT:
Peggy Lamson, Selectman & Town Health Offic
DATE:
15 August 1990
TYPE:
Letter
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.6) #34 001-004
LONG TITLE:
"Letter regarding the disposal of clean water, d
AUTHOR:
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
RECIPIENT:
Air Force
DATE:
25 Sepatember 1990
TYPE:
Letter
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.6) #35 001-002
LONG TITLE:
"Letter regarding procedures for handling solids
construction and soil borings"
AUTHOR:
State of New Hampshire, Department of Environmen
RECIPIENT:
Air Force
DATE:
25 September 1990
TYPE:
Letter
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.6) #36 001-006
LONG TITLE:
"Letter regarding Pease Air Force Base well inst
AUTHOR:
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
RECIPIENT:
Air Force
DATE:
26 September 1990
MK01\RPT:00628026.004\zone5rod.apc
09/09/94
TYPE:
Letter
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.6) #37 001-002
LONG TITLE:
"Letter regarding testing of IRP Site 32/36 well
AUTHOR:
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
RECIPIENT:
Air Force
DATE:
27 September 1990
TYPE:
Letter
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.6) #38 001-002
LONG TITLE:
"Information Letter 3 - Documenting discussion o
AUTHOR:
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
RECIPIENT:
Air Force
DATE:
29 October 1990
TYPE:
Letter
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.6) #39 001-002
LONG TITLE:
"Letter regarding the disposal of clean soil cut
AUTHOR:
Department of the Air Force
RECIPIENT:
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
DATE:
1 November 1990
TYPE:
Letter
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.6) #40 001-007
LONG TITLE:
"Stage 3, Landfill 5 Site Characterization Summa
Information Report; review comments"
AUTHOR:
State of New Hampshire, Department of Environmen
RECIPIENT:
Air Force
DATE:
30 January 1991
TYPE:
Review Comments
SECOND REFERENCE:
PEA (3.4) #32 001-338
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.6) #41 001-008
LONG TITLE:
"Response to Comments - Draft Final Stage 4 Work
Analysis Plan"
AUTHOR:
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
RECIPIENT:
Air Force
DATE:
7 February 1991
TYPE:
Letter/Response to Comments
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.6) #42 001-017
LONG TITLE:
"EPA review comments on the Stage 3, Landfill 5
Summary Informal Technical Information Report"
AUTHOR:
U.S. EPA
RECIPIENT:
Air Force
DATE:
14 February 1991
MK01\RPT:00628026.004\zone5rod.apc
09/09/94
TYPE:
Review Comments
SECOND REFERENCE:
PEA (3.4) # 32 001-338
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.6) #43 001-004
LONG TITLE:
"Issues Needing Resolution Prior to the Upcoming
AUTHOR:
U.S. EPA
RECIPIENT:
Air Force
DATE:
10 April 1991
TYPE:
Letter
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.6) #44 001-030
LONG TITLE:
"Respoonse to Comments. Landfill 5 Site Charact
Technical Information Report"
AUTHOR:
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
RECIPIENT:
Air Force
DATE:
7 June 1991
TYPE:
Response to Comments
SECOND REFERENCE:
PEA (3.4) #32 001-338
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.6) #45 001-030
LONG TITLE:
"(Revised) Response to Comments.
Informal Technical Information Report"
AUTHOR:
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
RECIPIENT:
Air Force
DATE:
17 July 1991
TYPE:
Letter
SECOND REFERENCE:
PEA (3.4) #32 001-338
LOCATION:
ARF
Landfill 5 - S
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.6) #46 001-038
LONG TITLE:
"Response to Comments - Stage 4 Work Plan and SA
AUTHOR:
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
RECIPIENT:
Air Force
DATE:
28 September 1990
TYPE:
Response to Comments
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.6) #47 001-011
LONG TITLE:
"Review comments on the Installation Restoration
Plan and Sampling and Analysis Plan"
AUTHOR:
State of New Hampshire, Department of Environmen
RECIPIENT:
Air Force
DATE:
16 October 1990
TYPE:
Review Comments
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.6) #48 001-017
LONG TITLE:
"The Town of Newington review comments on the IR
AUTHOR:
The Town of Newington
RECIPIENT:
Air Force
DATE:
29 October 1990
MK01\RPT:00628026.004\zone5rod.apc
09/09/94
TYPE:
Review Comments
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.6) #49 001-076
LONG TITLE:
"EPA technical review of the Draft IRP Stage 4 W
Analysis Plan for Pease Air Force Base"
AUTHOR:
U.S. EPA
RECIPIENT:
Air Force
DATE:
2 November 1990
TYPE:
Review Comments
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.6) #50 001-002
LONG TITLE:
"Response to Air Force questions on state commen
AUTHOR:
State of New Hampshire, Department of Environmen
RECIPIENT:
Air Force
DATE:
3 December 1990
TYPE:
Response to Air Force questions on State of New
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.6) #51 001-007
LONG TITLE:
"Response to EPA comments on the Pease AFB Stage
and Analysis Plan"
AUTHOR:
U.S. Air Force
RECIPIENT:
EPA
DATE:
10 December 1990
TYPE:
Air Force responses to EPA comments
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
Sampling and Analysis Plan"
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
#
PEA (3.6) #52 001-008
"Air Force Response to NHDES Comments - Draft Fi
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
Air Force
7 February 1991
Response to Comments
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
ARF
None
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.6) #53 001-008
LONG TITLE:
"EPA initial approval of the IRP Stage 4 Work Pl
Plan"
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
U.S. EPA
Air Force
13 March 1991
Letter concerning EPA initial approval of Stage
Analysis Plan
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
ARF
None
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.6) #54 001-058
LONG TITLE:
"Air Force Response to EPA comments on the Stage
and Analysis Plan"
AUTHOR:
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
RECIPIENT:
EPA
DATE:
1991
MK01\RPT:00628026.004\zone5rod.apc
09/09/94
TYPE:
Response to Comments
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.6) #55 001-003
LONG TITLE:
Off-Base Sampling at Pease Air Force Base
AUTHOR:
Richard Pease, NHDES
RECIPIENT:
Art Ditto, Pease AFB
DATE:
25 October 1990
TYPE:
Letter
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.6) #56 001-001
LONG TITLE:
EPA Concerns
AUTHOR:
U.S. Air Force - Internal Note
RECIPIENT:
Art Ditto/USAF/Pease AFB
DATE:
8 April 1991
TYPE:
Internal Record of Phone Conversation with EPA a
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.6) #57 001-004
LONG TITLE:
Issues Needing Resolution Prior to Upcoming Fiel
AUTHOR:
Johanna Hunter, RPM
U.S. EPA, Region 1
RECIPIENT:
Arthur Ditto, RPM
USAF, Pease AFB
DATE:
10 April 1991
TYPE:
Letter
SECOND REFERENCE:
Stage 3 and 4 Work Plan (3.3)
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.6) #58 001-002
LONG TITLE:
Review of Risk Assessment Data and Sampling Proc
AUTHOR:
Johanna Hunter, USEPA
RECIPIENT:
Arthur Ditto, Pease AFB
DATE:
16 April 1991
TYPE:
Letter
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.6) #59 001-067
LONG TITLE:
Concerns about Analytical Methods
AUTHOR:
USAF
RECIPIENT:
USAF
Johanna Hunter, USEPA
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
DATE:
23 April 1991
TYPE:
Fax with Attachments
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.6) #60 001-001
MK01\RPT:00628026.004\zone5rod.apc
09/09/94
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
Surface Water and Sediment Sampling Location
Arthur Ditto, RPM
USAF/Pease AFB
RECIPIENT:
Johanna Hunter, RPM
U.S. EPA, Region 1
DATE:
24 April 1991
TYPE:
Letter (Transmittal)
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.6) #61 001-008
LONG TITLE:
Field Oversight Coordination
AUTHOR:
Johanna Hunter, USEPA
RECIPIENT:
Arthur Ditto, Pease AFB
DATE:
29 April 1991
TYPE:
Letter
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.6) #62 001-004
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
Preliminary Sampling Schedule for Stage 3C IRP S
USAF
Johanna Hunter, USEPA
Richard Pease, NHDES
DATE:
02 May 1991
TYPE:
Fax
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.6) #63 001-003
LONG TITLE:
Review of April 25, 1991 Revised Analytical Meth
AUTHOR:
Johanna Hunter, USEPA
RECIPIENT:
Art Ditto, Pease AFB
DATE:
08 May 1991
TYPE:
Letter
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.6) #64 001-002
LONG TITLE:
Review of April 25, 1991 Revised Analytical Meth
AUTHOR:
Johanna Hunter, USEPA
RECIPIENT:
Art Ditto, Pease AFB
DATE:
08 May 1991
TYPE:
Letter
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.6) #65 001-005
LONG TITLE:
Field Performance Review of Weston Activities, P
Hampshire
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
Mitre Corporation
Dennis Lundquist
Human Systems Division
IRP Program Office
HSD/YAQ
Brooks AFB, TX 78235-5000
MK01\RPT:00628026.004\zone5rod.apc
09/09/94
DATE:
14 May 1991
TYPE:
Letter
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.6) #66 001-002
LONG TITLE:
Revised Analytical Methods for Pease AFB
AUTHOR:
Logan VanLeigh, Capt., USAF, BSC
Technical Program Manager
RECIPIENT:
Johanna Hunter, RPM
U.S. EPA, Region 1
DATE:
31 May 1991
TYPE:
Letter
SECOND REFERENCE:
Sampling and Analysis Plan (3.1)
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.6) #67 001-005
LONG TITLE:
Procedure for Establishing Background Metal Conc
and Soil
AUTHOR:
Edward S. Barnes, Roy F. Weston, Inc.
RECIPIENT:
USAF
DATE:
03 June 1991
TYPE:
Letter
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.6) #68 001-012
LONG TITLE:
Information to Assist Interpretation of Data Sub
AUTHOR:
Johanna Hunter, USEPA
RECIPIENT:
Art Ditto, Pease AFB
DATE:
06 June 1991
TYPE:
Letter
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.6) #69 001-004
LONG TITLE:
Resolution Letter for Procedures for 8260 for VO
AUTHOR:
Mark McKenzie, Pease AFB
RECIPIENT:
Richard Pease, NHDES
Carl Gysler, Earth Technology, San Bernadino
Johanna Hunter, USEPA
DATE:
06 June 1991
TYPE:
Fax
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.6) #70 001-001
LONG TITLE:
Background Determination Protocols
AUTHOR:
USAF
RECIPIENT:
Richard Pease, NHDES
DATE:
07 June 1991
TYPE:
Letter
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF
#
MK01\RPT:00628026.004\zone5rod.apc
09/09/94
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.6) #71 001-001
LONG TITLE:
Background Determination Protocols
AUTHOR:
USAF
RECIPIENT:
Johanna Hunter, USEPA
DATE:
07 June 1991
TYPE:
Letter
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.6) #72 001-003
LONG TITLE:
Revised Analytical Methods for Pease AFB GC/MS M
AUTHOR:
Edward S. Barnes, Roy F. Weston, Inc.
RECIPIENT:
USAF
DATE:
11 June 1991
TYPE:
Letter
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.6) #73 001-001
LONG TITLE:
Laboratory Services
AUTHOR:
Richard Pease, NHDES
RECIPIENT:
Art Ditto, Pease AFB
DATE:
13 June 1991
TYPE:
Letter
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.6) #74 001-004
LONG TITLE:
Pease AFB Feedback on Site 8 Sampling - June 199
AUTHOR:
Richard Pease, NHDES
RECIPIENT:
Art Ditto, Pease AFB
DATE:
19 June 1991
TYPE:
Letter
SECOND REFERENCE:
Site 8
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.6) #75 001-002
LONG TITLE:
EPA Pump Test Information Request to be Provided
AUTHOR:
Johanna Hunter, RPM
U.S. EPA Region 1
RECIPIENT:
Art Ditto, RPM
USAF
Pease AFB
DATE:
27 June 1991
TYPE:
Letter
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.6) #76 001-002
LONG TITLE:
Roy F. Weston, Inc., Proposed Methods for Determ
Concentrations at Pease Air Force Base, New
Hampshire
AUTHOR:
George Rice, Mitre Corporation
RECIPIENT:
Dennis Lundquist
Human Systems Division IRP Program Office
HSD/YAQ
MK01\RPT:00628026.004\zone5rod.apc
09/09/94
Brooks AFB, TX 78235-5000
DATE:
02 July 1991
TYPE:
Letter
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.6) #77 001-001
LONG TITLE:
Transmittal Letter for Protocols for Baseliine R
AUTHOR:
Arthur Ditto, RPM
USAF/Pease AFB
RECIPIENT:
Richard Pease, RPM
NHDES
DATE:
18 July 1991
TYPE:
Transmittal Letter
SECOND REFERENCE:
Baseline Risk Assessments
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.6) #78 001-001
LONG TITLE:
Transmittal Letter for Protocols for Baseline Ri
AUTHOR:
Arthur Ditto, RPM
USAF/Pease AFB
RECIPIENT:
Johanna Hunter, RPM
U.S. EPA, Region 1
DATE:
18 July 1991
TYPE:
Transmittal Letter
SECOND REFERENCE:
Baseline Risk Assessments
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.6) #79 001-001
LONG TITLE:
Submittal of Secondary Document
AUTHOR:
USAF
RECIPIENT:
Richard Pease, NHDES
Johanna Hunter, USEPA
DATE:
18 July 1991
TYPE:
Letter
SECOND REFERENCE:
Site 32/36
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.6) #80 001-002
LONG TITLE:
Exploratory Boring Soil Sampling Procedures
AUTHOR:
Edward S. Barnes
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
RECIPIENT:
Capt. Logan Van Leigh
U.S. Air Force
Air Force Center for Environmental Excellenc
DATE:
26 July 1991
TYPE:
Letter
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.6) #81 001-001
LONG TITLE:
Vented Monitoring Wells
AUTHOR:
Scott Doane, Hydrogeologist
Groundwater Technology Section
Groundwater Protection Bureau
MK01\RPT:00628026.004\zone5rod.apc
09/09/94
NHDES
Mark McKenzie
USAF/Pease AFB
DATE:
31 July 1991
TYPE:
Letter
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF
RECIPIENT:
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.6) #82 001-006
LONG TITLE:
Review of the Proposed Procedure for Background
Pease Air Force Base, Portsmouth, NH
AUTHOR:
Johanna Hunter, USEPA
RECIPIENT:
Art Ditto, Pease AFB
DATE:
02 August 1991
TYPE:
Letter
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.6) #83 001-001
LONG TITLE:
Vented Monitoring Wells - Response to July 31, 1
Form NHDES
AUTHOR:
Arthur Ditto, RPM
USAF/Pease AFB
RECIPIENT:
Scott Doane
NHDES
DATE:
26 August 1991
TYPE:
Letter
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.6) #84 001-001
LONG TITLE:
Split Sampling Results
AUTHOR:
Arthur Ditto, RPM
U.S. Air Force/Pease AFB
RECIPIENT:
Johanna Hunter, RPM
U.S. EPA, Region 1
and
Richard Pease, RPM
NHDES
DATE:
9 September 1991
TYPE:
Letter
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.6) #85 001-002
LONG TITLE:
Field Oversight - September 1991
AUTHOR:
Richard Pease, NHDES
RECIPIENT:
Arthur Ditto, USAF RPM
DATE:
28 October 1991
TYPE:
Letter
SECOND REFERENCE:
RI Field Work (3.4)
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.6) #86 001-001
LONG TITLE:
Transmittal Letter for Data Collected on Surface
Background Concentration
AUTHOR:
Johanna Hunter, RPM
U.S. EPA, Region 1
MK01\RPT:00628026.004\zone5rod.apc
09/09/94
RECIPIENT:
Ed Barnes
Project Manager
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
DATE:
2 December 1991
TYPE:
Transmittal Letter
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.6) #87 001-002
LONG TITLE:
Regional Literature Search to Assist Development
Water Background Determination for Pease
AFB, Portsmouth, NH
AUTHOR:
Johanna Hunter, USEPA
RECIPIENT:
Art Ditto, Pease AFB
DATE:
2 December 1991
TYPE:
Letter
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.6) #88 001-001
LONG TITLE:
Fugitive Dust Pathway in the Baseline Risk Asses
AUTHOR:
Arthur Ditto, RPM, USAF
Pease AFB
RECIPIENT:
Johanna Hunter RPM
U.S. EPA Region 1
DATE:
3 January 1992
TYPE:
Letter
SECOND REFERENCE:
Baseline Risk Assessment (3.5) - RI Reports
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.6) #89 001-001
LONG TITLE:
Evaluation of the Air Pathway in Baseline Risk A
AUTHOR:
USAF
RECIPIENT:
Johanna Hunter, USEPA
DATE:
11 February 1992
TYPE:
Letter
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.6) #90 001-001
LONG TITLE:
Evaluation of the Air Pathway in Baseline Risk A
AUTHOR:
USAF
RECIPIENT:
Richard Pease, nhdes
DATE:
11 February 1992
TYPE:
Letter
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.6) #91 001-002
LONG TITLE:
IRP Site 32/36 Source Area Remedial Investigatio
AUTHOR:
Edward S. Barnes, Roy F. Weston, Inc.
RECIPIENT:
USAF
Johanna Hunter, USEPA
Richard Pease, NHDES
DATE:
14 February 1992
TYPE:
Letter
MK01\RPT:00628026.004\zone5rod.apc
09/09/94
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
Site 32/36
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.6) #92 001-001
LONG TITLE:
IRP Site 32/36 Source Area Remedial Investigatio
AUTHOR:
Edward S. Barnes, Roy F. Weston, Inc.
RECIPIENT:
Richard Pease, NHDES
DATE:
14 February 1992
TYPE:
Letter
SECOND REFERENCE:
Site 32/36
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.6) #93 001-001
LONG TITLE:
IRP Site 32/36 Source Area Remedial Investigatio
AUTHOR:
Edward S. Barnes, Roy F. Weston, Inc.
RECIPIENT:
Johanna Hunter, USEPA
DATE:
14 February 1992
TYPE:
Letter
SECOND REFERENCE:
Site 32/36
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.6) #94 001-001
LONG TITLE:
Submittal of Draft Primary Document, Site 32/36
AUTHOR:
USAF
RECIPIENT:
Richard Pease, NHDES
DATE:
25 February 1992
TYPE:
Letter
SECOND REFERENCE:
Site 32/36
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.6) #95 001-001
LONG TITLE:
Transmittal Letter for Submittal of Baseline Ris
AUTHOR:
Arthur Ditto, RPM
USAF/Pease AFB
RECIPIENT:
Richard Pease, RPM
NHDES
DATE:
25 February 1992
TYPE:
Transmittal Letter
SECOND REFERENCE:
Baseline Risk Assessment
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.6) #96 001-001
LONG TITLE:
Transmittal Letter for Revised Baseline Risk Ass
AUTHOR:
Arthur Ditto, RPM
USAF/Pease AFB
RECIPIENT:
Johanna Hunter, RPM
USEPA, Region 1
DATE:
25 February 1992
TYPE:
Trasmittal Letter
SECOND REFERENCE:
Revised Baseline Risk Assessment
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.6) #97 001-001
LONG TITLE:
Submittal of Draft Primary Document, Site 32/36
MK01\RPT:00628026.004\zone5rod.apc
09/09/94
AUTHOR:
USAF
RECIPIENT:
Johanna Hunter, USEPA
DATE:
25 February 1992
TYPE:
Letter
SECOND REFERENCE:
Site 32/36
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.6) #98 001-003
LONG TITLE:
Request for EPA Split Sampling Results
AUTHOR:
Arthur Ditto, RPM
USAF/Pease AFB
RECIPIENT:
Johanna Hunter, RPM
U.S. EPA, Region 1
DATE:
9 March 1992
TYPE:
Letter
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.6) #99 001-D1
LONG TITLE:
Letter Report of Results of Statistical Comparis
Other Background Samples
AUTHOR:
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
RECIPIENT:
USAF
DATE:
9 March 1992
TYPE:
Letter Report
SECOND REFERENCE:
PEA (3.5)
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.6) #100 001-001
LONG TITLE:
Transmittal Letter for Submittal of Stage 4 Work
the Draft Stage 4 Sampling and Analysis
Plan Addendum Number 2
AUTHOR:
Arthur Ditto, RPM
USAF/Pease AFB
RECIPIENT:
Johanna Hunter
U.S. EPA, Region 1
DATE:
24 March 1992
TYPE:
Transmittal Letter
SECOND REFERENCE:
PEA (3.1), PEA (3.3)
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.6) #101 001-001
LONG TITLE:
Transmittal Letter for Submittal of Stage 4 Adde
Sampling and Analysis Plan
AUTHOR:
Arthur Ditto, RPM
USAF/Pease AFB
RECIPIENT:
Richard Pease, RPM
NHDES
DATE:
24 March 1992
TYPE:
Transmittal Letter
SECOND REFERENCE:
PEA (3.1), PEA (3.3)
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.6) #102 001-001
LONG TITLE:
Data You May Be Able to Provide
AUTHOR:
Thomas R. Marks, Roy F. Weston, Inc.
RECIPIENT:
Mark McKenzie, Pease AFB
DATE:
26 May 1992
MK01\RPT:00628026.004\zone5rod.apc
09/09/94
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
Letter
None
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.6) #103 001-022
LONG TITLE:
Evaluation of Air Pathway in Baseline Risk Asses
AUTHOR:
Richard Pease, NHDES
RECIPIENT:
Art Ditto, Pease AFB
DATE:
13 April 1992
TYPE:
Letter with Attachments
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.6) #104 001-004
LONG TITLE:
Pease Air Force Base Site 34 Aource Area Draft F
AUTHOR:
Edward S. Barnes, Roy F. Weston, Inc.
RECIPIENT:
USAF
Johanna Hunter, USEPA
Richard Pease, NHDES
DATE:
07 May 1992
TYPE:
Letter
SECOND REFERENCE:
Site 34
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.6) #105 001-003
LONG TITLE:
Pease Air Force Base Zone 4 Draft Site Character
AUTHOR:
Edward S. Barnes, Roy F. Weston, Inc.
RECIPIENT:
USAF
Johanna Hunter, USEPA
Richard Pease, NHDES
DATE:
08 May 1992
TYPE:
Letter
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.6) #106 001-002
LONG TITLE:
Oversight Role of Regulatory Agencies at Pease A
AUTHOR:
Michael Daly, USEPA
RECIPIENT:
Mark McKenzie, Pease AFB
DATE:
26 May 1992
TYPE:
Letter
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.6) #107 001-003
LONG TITLE:
Submittal of Draft Secondary Document, Zone 3 Si
AUTHOR:
USAF
RECIPIENT:
Johanna Hunter, USEPA
Richard Pease, NHDES
DATE:
26 May 1992
TYPE:
Letter
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF
#
MK01\RPT:00628026.004\zone5rod.apc
09/09/94
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.6) #108 001-002
LONG TITLE:
Pease Air Force Base Site IRP 32/36 Source Area
Response to Comments for the IRP Site 32/36
Draft RI Report
AUTHOR:
Lee dePersia, Roy F. Weston, Inc.
RECIPIENT:
USAF
Johanna Hunter, USEPA
Richard Pease, NHDES
DATE:
05 June 1992
TYPE:
Letter
SECOND REFERENCE:
Site 32/36
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.6) #109 001-001
LONG TITLE:
Submittal of Draft Primary Document, Site 32/36
AUTHOR:
USAF
RECIPIENT:
Johanna Hunter, USEPA
DATE:
16 June 1992
TYPE:
Letter
SECOND REFERENCE:
Site 32/36
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.6) #110 001-001
LONG TITLE:
Submittal of Draft Final Primary Document, Site
Report
AUTHOR:
USAF
RECIPIENT:
Richard Pease, NHDES
DATE:
16 June 1992
TYPE:
Letter
SECOND REFERENCE:
Site 32/36
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.6) #111 001-001
LONG TITLE:
Submittal of Draft Secondary Documents, Stage 4
Stage 4 Health and Safety Plan Addendum
AUTHOR:
USAF
RECIPIENT:
Richard Pease, NHDES
DATE:
24 June 1992
TYPE:
Letter
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.6) #112 001-001
LONG TITLE:
Submittal of Draft Secondary documents, Stage 4
Stage 4 Health and Safety Plan Addendum
AUTHOR:
USAF
RECIPIENT:
Johanna Hunter, USEPA
DATE:
24 June 1992
TYPE:
Letter
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
PEA (3.6) #113 001-002
Additional Field Oversight
USAF
Michael Daly, USEPA
8 July 1992
Letter
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
MK01\RPT:00628026.004\zone5rod.apc
09/09/94
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.6) #114 001-001
LONG TITLE:
Submittal Letter for Draft Site Characterization
AUTHOR:
Arthur Ditto, RPM
USAF/Pease AFB
RECIPIENT:
Johanna Hunter, RPM
USEPA, Region 1
DATE:
18 July 1992
TYPE:
Transmittal Letter
SECOND REFERENCE:
Site 32/36
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.6) #115 001-003
LONG TITLE:
Pease Air Force FDTA-2 Draft RI Report
AUTHOR:
Lee dePersia, Roy F. Weston, Inc.
RECIPIENT:
USAF
Johanna Hunter, USEPA
Richard Pease, NHDES
DATE:
29 July 1992
TYPE:
Letter
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.6) #116 001-021
LONG TITLE:
Pease Air Force Base Groundwater Modeling Letter
AUTHOR:
Lee dePersia, Roy F. Weston, Inc.
RECIPIENT:
USAF
Johanna Hunter, USEPA
Richard Pease, NHDES
DATE:
29 July 1992
TYPE:
Letter with Report
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.6) #117 001-001
LONG TITLE:
Submittal of Draft Primary Document, Site 8 Reme
AUTHOR:
USAF
RECIPIENT:
Johanna Hunter, USEPA
DATE:
30 July 1992
TYPE:
Letter
SECOND REFERENCE:
Site 8
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.6) #118 001-001
LONG TITLE:
Submittal of Draft Primary Document, Site 8 Reme
AUTHOR:
USAF
RECIPIENT:
Richard Pease, NHDES
DATE:
30 July 1992
TYPE:
Letter
SECOND REFERENCE:
Site 8
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.6) #119 001-001
MK01\RPT:00628026.004\zone5rod.apc
09/09/94
LONG TITLE:
Influent/Effluent Results
AUTHOR:
Transmittal Letter for Summary of Groundwate
Arthur Ditto, RPM
USAF/Pease AFB
RECIPIENT:
Johanna Hunter, RPM
USEPA, Region 1
and
Richard Pease, RPM
NHDES
DATE:
11 August 1992
TYPE:
Letter
SECOND REFERENCE:
PEA (2.7)
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.6) #120 001-001
LONG TITLE:
Monitor Well Inventory and Inspection Report
AUTHOR:
USAF
RECIPIENT:
Johanna Hunter, USEPA
Richard Pease, NHDES
DATE:
18 August 1992
TYPE:
Letter
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.6) #121 001-002
LONG TITLE:
Base Support Requirements for Haven Well Pumping
AUTHOR:
USAF
RECIPIENT:
James Winder
Pat Hamel
E.L. Hamm
DATE:
21 August 1992
TYPE:
Letter
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.6) #122 001-002
LONG TITLE:
Results of Background Surface Water Sediment Loc
AUTHOR:
Richard Pease, RPM, NHDES
RECIPIENT:
Arthur Ditto, RPM, Pease AFB
DATE:
27 August 1992
TYPE:
Letter
SECOND REFERENCE:
PEA (6.4)
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.6) #123 001-005
LONG TITLE:
Risk Assessment Issues for Pease AFB
AUTHOR:
Lee dePersia
Task Manager
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
RECIPIENT:
Arthur Ditto, RPM
USAF/Pease AFB
DATE:
28 August 1992
TYPE:
Letter Report
SECOND REFERENCE:
PEA (3.5)
LOCATION:
ARF
#
MK01\RPT:00628026.004\zone5rod.apc
09/09/94
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.6) #124 001-001
LONG TITLE:
Transmittal Letter for Submittal of Groundwater
AUTHOR:
Mark McKenzie for Arthur Ditto
USAF/Pease AFB
RECIPIENT:
Richard Pease, RPM
NHDES
and
Johanna Hunter
U.S. EPA, Region 1
DATE:
1 September 1992
TYPE:
Letter
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.6) #125 001-002
LONG TITLE:
Policy on Data Transfer During Pumping Tests
AUTHOR:
Arthur Ditto, RPM
USAF/Pease AFB
RECIPIENT:
Richard Pease, RPM
NHDES
and
Johanna Hunter, RPM
U.S. EPA, Region 1
DATE:
9 September 1992
TYPE:
Letter
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.6) #126 001-001
LONG TITLE:
Transmittal Letter for Submittal of Draft Primar
Action Decision Document (NFADD)
AUTHOR:
Arthur Ditto, RPM
USAF/Pease AFB
Johanna Hunter, RPM
U.S. EPA/Region 1
DATE:
9 September 1992
TYPE:
Letter
SECOND REFERENCE:
Site 3
LOCATION:
ARF
RECIPIENT:
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.6) #127 001-001
LONG TITLE:
Transmittal Letter for Submittal of Draft Primar
Action Decision Document (NFADD)
AUTHOR:
Arthur Ditto, RPM
USAF/Pease AFB
RECIPIENT:
Richard Pease, RPM
NHDES
DATE:
9 September 1992
TYPE:
Letter
SECOND REFERENCE:
Site 3
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.6) #128 001-003
LONG TITLE:
Summary of Risk Issues Meeting of August 19, 199
AUTHOR:
Johanna Hunter, RPM
U.S. EPA, Region 1
RECIPIENT:
Arthur Ditto, RPM
USAF/Pease AFB
MK01\RPT:00628026.004\zone5rod.apc
09/09/94
DATE:
16 September 1992
TYPE:
Letter
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.6) #129 001-001
LONG TITLE:
Extension of Draft Final Report Submittal Date,
Report
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
USAF
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
PEA (3.6) #130 001-002
Field Oversight - Mid-August-Mid-September
Richard Pease, NHDES
Arthur Ditto, RPM Pease AFB
7 October 1991
Letter
Johanna Hunter, USEPA
Richard Pease, NHDES
DATE:
6 October 1992
TYPE:
Letter
SECOND REFERENCE:
Site 8
LOCATION:
ARF
#
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (3.4)
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.6) #131 001-001
LONG TITLE:
Pease AFB Zone 1 Site Characterization Summary
AUTHOR:
Lee dePersia
Task Manager
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
RECIPIENT:
Capt. Carl Woerhle
U.S. Air Force
Base Closure Division
Air Force Center for Environmental Excellenc
DATE:
21 October 1992
TYPE:
Transmittal Letter
SECOND REFERENCE:
Zone 1
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.6) #132 001-001
LONG TITLE:
Pease AFB Zone 5 Site Characterization Summary
AUTHOR:
Lee dePersia, Roy F. Weston, Inc.
RECIPIENT:
USAF
Johanna Hunter, USEPA
Richard Pease, NHDES
DATE:
22 October 1992
TYPE:
Letter
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.6) #133 001-001
LONG TITLE:
Transmittal Letter for Pease AFB Zone 2 Site Cha
AUTHOR:
Lee dePersia
Task Manager
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
RECIPIENT:
Capt. Carl Woerhle
MK01\RPT:00628026.004\zone5rod.apc
09/09/94
U.S. Air Force Base Closure Division
Air Force Center for Environmental Excellenc
DATE:
22 October 1992
TYPE:
Letter
SECOND REFERENCE:
Zone 2
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.6) #134 001-001
LONG TITLE:
Transmittal Letter for Submittalof Zone 2 Site C
AUTHOR:
Lee dePersia
Task Manager
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
RECIPIENT:
Richard Pease, RPM
NHDES
DATE:
22 October 1992
TYPE:
Letter
SECOND REFERENCE:
Zone 2
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.6) #135 001-001
LONG TITLE:
Transmittal Letter for Submittal of Zone 2 Site
Report
AUTHOR:
Lee dePersia
Task Manager
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
RECIPIENT:
Johanna Hall
TRC Member
Boott Mills South of Foot Street
Lowell, MA
DATE:
22 October 1992
TYPE:
Letter
SECOND REFERENCE:
Zone 2
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.6) #136 001-001
LONG TITLE:
Transmittal Letter for Submittal of Zone 2 Site
Report
AUTHOR:
Lee dePersia
Task Manager
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
RECIPIENT:
Johanna Hunter, RPM
U.S. EPA, Region 1
DATE:
22 October 1992
TYPE:
Letter
SECOND REFERENCE:
Zone 2
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.6) #137 001-001
LONG TITLE:
Submittal of Draft Secondary Documents, Zones 1,
Characterization Summaries
AUTHOR:
USAF
RECIPIENT:
Richard Pease, NHDES
DATE:
26 October 1992
TYPE:
Letter
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.6) #138 001-001
MK01\RPT:00628026.004\zone5rod.apc
09/09/94
LONG TITLE:
Characterization Summaries
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
Submittal of Draft Secondary Documents, Zone
USAF
Johanna Hunter, USEPA
DATE:
26 October 1992
TYPE:
Letter
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.6) #139 001-001
LONG TITLE:
Submittal of Stage 4 Sampling and Analysis Plan
AUTHOR:
USAF
RECIPIENT:
Johanna Hunter, USEPA
DATE:
26 October 1992
TYPE:
Letter
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.6) #140 001-001
LONG TITLE:
Submittal of Stage 4 Sampling and Analysis Plan
AUTHOR:
USAF
RECIPIENT:
Richard Pease, NHDES
DATE:
26 October 1992
TYPE:
Letter
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.6) #141 001-002
LONG TITLE:
Pease Air Force Base Draft Final IRP Site 8 RI R
AUTHOR:
Lee dePersia, Roy F. Weston, Inc.
RECIPIENT:
USAF
Johanna Hunter, USEPA
Richard Pease, NHDES
DATE:
13 November 1992
TYPE:
Letter
SECOND REFERENCE:
Site 8
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.6) #142 001-001
LONG TITLE:
Transmittal Letter for Submittal of Stage 5 Heal
AUTHOR:
Arthur Ditto, RPM
RECIPIENT:
USAF/Pease AFB
Johanna Hunter, RPM
U.S. EPA, Region 1
and
Richard Pease, RPM
NHDES
DATE:
17 November 1992
TYPE:
Letter
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.6) #143 001-001
LONG TITLE:
Transmittal Letter for Submittal of Draft Final
Report
AUTHOR:
Arthur Ditto, RPM
USAF, Pease AFB
MK01\RPT:00628026.004\zone5rod.apc
09/09/94
RECIPIENT:
Richard Pease, RPM
NHDES
DATE:
17 November 1992
TYPE:
Letter
SECOND REFERENCE:
Site 8
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.6) #144 001-001
LONG TITLE:
Transmittal Letter for Submittal of Draft Final
Report
AUTHOR:
Arthur Ditto, RPM
USAF, Pease AFB
RECIPIENT:
Johanna Hunter, RPM
U.S. EPA, Region 1
DATE:
17 November 1992
TYPE:
Letter
SECOND REFERENCE:
Site 8
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.6) #145 001-004
LONG TITLE:
No Further Action Decision for Site 3
AUTHOR:
Arthur Ditto, RPM
USAF, Pease AFB
RECIPIENT:
Johanna Hunter, RPM
U.S. EPA, Region 1
DATE:
1 December 1992
TYPE:
Letter
SECOND REFERENCE:
Site 3
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.6) #146 001-001
LONG TITLE:
Application of the Reasonable Maximum Exposure (
AUTHOR:
Arthur Ditto, RPM
USAF, Pease AFB
RECIPIENT:
Richard Pease, RPM
NHDES
DATE:
1 December 1992
TYPE:
Letter
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.6) #147 001-001
LONG TITLE:
Explanation of Off-Base Well Inventory Report
AUTHOR:
Arthur Ditto, RPM
USAF, Pease AFB
RECIPIENT:
Richard Pease, RPM
NHDES
DATE:
4 December 1992
TYPE:
Letter
SECOND REFERENCE:
Off-Base Well Inventory Letter Report of 17
PEA (3.5)
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.6) #148 001-001
LONG TITLE:
Transmittal Letter for Submittal of Quality Assu
Portion of the Stage 4 Sampling and Analysis
Plan (SAP) Number 3
MK01\RPT:00628026.004\zone5rod.apc
09/09/94
AUTHOR:
Arthur Ditto, RPM
USAF, Pease AFB
RECIPIENT:
Johanna Hunter, RPM
U.S. EPA, Region 1
and
Richard Pease, RPM
NHDES
DATE:
11 December 1992
TYPE:
Letter
SECOND REFERENCE:
PEA (3.1)
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.6) #149 001-002
LONG TITLE:
Request for Deadline Extension
AUTHOR:
Arthur Ditto, RPM
USAF, Pease AFB
RECIPIENT:
Johanna Hunter, RPM
U.S. EPA, Region 1
and
Richard Pease, RPM
NHDES
DATE:
23 December 1992
TYPE:
Letter
SECOND REFERENCE:
PEA (6.3)
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.6) #150 001-001
LONG TITLE:
Transmittal of EPA Maximum Risk Calculation Adde
34 Draft Final RI Reports
AUTHOR:
Arthur Ditto, RPM
USAF, Pease AFB
RECIPIENT:
Johanna Hunter, RPM
U.S. EPA, Region 1
and
Richard Pease, RPM
NHDES
DATE:
29 December 1992
TYPE:
Letter
SECOND REFERENCE:
Sites 5, 8, 32/36 and 34; PEA (3.5)
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.6) #151 001-002
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
Selection of Remediation Action Alternative for
USAF
Johanna Hunter, USEPA
Richard Pease, NHDES
DATE:
08 January 1993
TYPE:
Letter
SECOND REFERENCE:
Site 8; PEA (4.6)
LOCATION:
ARF
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
#
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
MK01\RPT:00628026.004\zone5rod.apc
09/09/94
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (4.5)
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.6) #153 001-001
LONG TITLE:
Submittal of Draft Primary Document, Zone 4 Reme
AUTHOR:
USAF
RECIPIENT:
Richard Pease, NHDES
DATE:
9 March 1993
TYPE:
Letter
SECOND REFERENCE:
PEA (3.5); Zone 4
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.6) #154 001-001
LONG TITLE:
Submittal of Draft Primary Document, Zone 4 Reme
AUTHOR:
USAF
RECIPIENT:
Johanna Hunter, EPA
DATE:
9 March 1993
TYPE:
Letter
SECOND REFERENCE:
PEA (3.5); Zone 4
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.6) #154 001-006
LONG TITLE:
IRP Site 34 Contaminant Levels
AUTHOR:
NHDES
RECIPIENT:
Art Ditto, AFBDA
DATE:
3 March 1993
TYPE:
Letter
SECOND REFERENCE:
PEA (3.5); Site 34
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.6) #156 001-002
LONG TITLE:
Request for Deadline Extension
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
USAF
Johanna Hunter, EPA
Richard Pease, NHDES
DATE:
19 March 1993
TYPE:
Letter
SECOND REFERENCE:
PEA (3.5)
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.6) #157 001-001
LONG TITLE:
Submittal of Responses to Comments of the Zone 4
Summary
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
USAF
Johanna Hunter, EPA
Richard Pease, NHDES
DATE:
18 March 1993
TYPE:
Letter
SECOND REFERENCE:
Zone 4
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.6) #158 001-001
LONG TITLE:
Submittal of Draft Primary Document, Zone 5 Reme
AUTHOR:
USAF
RECIPIENT:
Richard Pease, NHDES
MK01\RPT:00628026.004\zone5rod.apc
09/09/94
DATE:
9 March 1993
TYPE:
Letter
SECOND REFERENCE:
PEA (3.5); Zone 5
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.6) #159 001-001
LONG TITLE:
Submittal of Draft Primary Document, Zone 5 Reme
AUTHOR:
USAF
RECIPIENT:
Johanna Hunter, EPA
DATE:
Undated
TYPE:
Letter
SECOND REFERENCE:
PEA (3.5); Zone 5
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.6) #160 001-001
LONG TITLE:
Submittal of Draft Primary Document, Landfill 5
AUTHOR:
USAF
RECIPIENT:
Richard Pease, NHDES
DATE:
21 April 1993
TYPE:
Letter
SECOND REFERENCE:
LF-5
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.6) #161 001-001
LONG TITLE:
Submittal of Draft Documents
AUTHOR:
USAF
RECIPIENT:
Richard Pease, NHDES
DATE:
21 April 1993
TYPE:
Letter
SECOND REFERENCE:
Zone 3, Zone 4, LF-5
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.6) #162 001-001
LONG TITLE:
Submittal of Draft Documents
AUTHOR:
USAF
RECIPIENT:
Richard Pease, NHDES
DATE:
21 April 1993
TYPE:
Letter
SECOND REFERENCE:
Zone 3, Zone 4, LF-5
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.6) #163 001-001
LONG TITLE:
Submittal of Draft Primary Document, Landfill 5
AUTHOR:
USAF
RECIPIENT:
Johanna Hunter, EPA
DATE:
21 April 1993
TYPE:
Letter
SECOND REFERENCE:
LF-5
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.6) #164 001-001
LONG TITLE:
Submittal of Draft Primary Document, Zone 1 Reme
AUTHOR:
USAF
RECIPIENT:
Richard Pease, NHDES
MK01\RPT:00628026.004\zone5rod.apc
09/09/94
DATE:
28 April 1993
TYPE:
Letter
SECOND REFERENCE:
Zone 1, PEA (3.5)
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.6) #165 001-001
LONG TITLE:
Submittal of Draft Primary Document, Zone 1 Reme
AUTHOR:
USAF
RECIPIENT:
Johanna Hunter, EPA
DATE:
28 April 1993
TYPE:
Letter
SECOND REFERENCE:
Zone 1, PEA (3.5)
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.6) #166 001-001
LONG TITLE:
Submittal of Draft Primary Document, Zone 2 Reme
AUTHOR:
USAF
RECIPIENT:
Johanna Hunter, EPA
DATE:
21 May 1993
TYPE:
Letter
SECOND REFERENCE:
Zone 2, PEA (3.5)
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.6) #167 001-001
LONG TITLE:
Submittal of Draft Primary Document, Zone 5 Draf
Investigation Report
AUTHOR:
Arthur Ditto, Pease AFB
RECIPIENT:
Michael Daly, EPA
Richard Pease, NHDES
DATE:
5 August 1993
TYPE:
Letter
SECOND REFERENCE:
Zone 5
LOCATION:
ARF (Section 3.6 Binder)
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.6) #168 001-002
LONG TITLE:
Zone 3 Remedial Investigation Report, Draft Fina
Assessment Concern
AUTHOR:
NHDES
RECIPIENT:
USAF
DATE:
5 November 1993
TYPE:
Letter
SECOND REFERENCE:
Zone 3
LOCATION:
ARF (Section 3.6 Binder)
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.6) #169 001-002
LONG TITLE:
Review of the Draft Final Zone 3 Remedial Invest
AUTHOR:
EPA
RECIPIENT:
USAF
DATE:
8 November 1993
TYPE:
Letter
SECOND REFERENCE:
Zone 3
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.6) #170 001-008
LONG TITLE:
Locations of Surface Waters of the State of New
Former Pease AFB
AUTHOR:
Arthur Ditto, Pease AFB
MK01\RPT:00628026.004\zone5rod.apc
09/09/94
RECIPIENT:
Richard Pease, NHDES
DATE:
16 November 1993
TYPE:
Letter with Attachment
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF (Section 3.6 Binder)
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.6) #171 001-002
LONG TITLE:
Zone 1 Draft Final Remedial Investigation Report
AUTHOR:
NHDES
RECIPIENT:
USAF
DATE:
24 November 1993
TYPE:
Letter
SECOND REFERENCE:
Zone 1
LOCATION:
ARF (Section 3.6 Binder)
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.6) #172 001-001
LONG TITLE:
Draft Final Zone 3, 4, and 5 Remedial Investigat
AUTHOR:
EPA
RECIPIENT:
USAF
DATE:
30 November 1993
TYPE:
Memorandum
SECOND REFERENCE:
Zone 3; Zone 4; Zone 5
LOCATION:
ARF (Section 3.6 Binder)
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.6) #173 001-013
LONG TITLE:
Work Plan for Site 32/36, RECLAIM Pilot Test
AUTHOR:
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
RECIPIENT:
USAF
DATE:
6 December 1993
TYPE:
Letter with Attachments
SECOND REFERENCE:
Site 32/36
LOCATION:
ARF (Section 3.6 Binder)
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.6) #174 001-001
LONG TITLE:
Work Plan for Site 32/36, RECLAIM Pilot Test
AUTHOR:
Arthur Ditto, Pease AFB
RECIPIENT:
Michael Daly, EPA
Richard Pease, NHDES
DATE:
8 December 1993
TYPE:
Letter
SECOND REFERENCE:
Site 32/36
LOCATION:
ARF (Section 3.6 Binder)
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.6) #175 001-002
LONG TITLE:
Zone 1 Draft Final Remedial Investigation Report
AUTHOR:
NHDES
RECIPIENT:
USAF
DATE:
27, November 1993
TYPE:
Letter
SECOND REFERENCE:
Zone 1
LOCATION:
ARF (Section 3.6 Binder)
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.6) #176 001-003
LONG TITLE:
Zone 1 Draft Final Remedial Investigation Report
MK01\RPT:00628026.004\zone5rod.apc
09/09/94
AUTHOR:
NHDES
RECIPIENT:
USAF
DATE:
15 December 1993
TYPE:
Letter
SECOND REFERENCE:
Zone 1
LOCATION:
ARF (Section 3.6 Binder)
#
MK01\RPT:00628026.004\zone5rod.apc
09/09/94
4.1
ARAR Determin
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (4.1) #1 001-024
LONG TITLE:
New Hampshire ARAR List Update
AUTHOR:
Richard H. Pease, P.E.
NHDES
RECIPIENT:
Arthur Ditto, P.E.
RPM, U.S. Air Force/Pease AFB
DATE:
13 April 1992
TYPE:
Letter and Tables
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (4.1) #2 001-B.3
LONG TITLE:
Installation Restoration Program Stage 4, Basewi
Base, NH 03803 - Draft
AUTHOR:
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
RECIPIENT:
USAF
DATE:
January 1993
TYPE:
ARARs
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF, IR
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (4.1) #3 001-002
LONG TITLE:
Waiverability of Env-WS 430, Surface Water Quali
AUTHOR:
Arthur Ditto, Pease AFB
RECIPIENT:
Richard Pease, NHDES
DATE:
21 December 1993
TYPE:
Letter
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF (Section 4.1 Binder)
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (4.1) #4 001-025
LONG TITLE:
New Hampshire ARAR List Update
AUTHOR:
NHDES
RECIPIENT:
USAF
DATE:
23 December 1993
TYPE:
Letter with Attachment
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF (Section 4.1 Binder)
#
MK01\RPT:00628026.004\zone5rod.apc
09/09/94
4.2
Feasibili
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (4.2) #1 001-B.39
LONG TITLE:
Installation Restoration Program, Stage 3C, Init
IRP Site 5, Pease AFB, NH
AUTHOR:
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
RECIPIENT:
USAF
DATE:
October 1991
TYPE:
Report
SECOND REFERENCE:
Site 5
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (4.2) #2 001-D.30
LONG TITLE:
Installation Restoration Program, Stage 3C, Init
IRP Site 34, Pease AFB, NH Draft
AUTHOR:
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
RECIPIENT:
USAF
DATE:
January 1992
TYPE:
Report
SECOND REFERENCE:
Site 34
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (4.2) #3 001-C.38
LONG TITLE:
Installation Restoration Program, Stage 3C, Init
IRP Site 32/36, Pease AFB, NH Draft
AUTHOR:
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
RECIPIENT:
USAF
DATE:
January 1992
TYPE:
Report
SECOND REFERENCE:
Site 32/36
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (4.2) #4 001-D.45
LONG TITLE:
Installation Restoration Program, Stage 3C, Init
IRP Site 8, Pease AFB, NH Technical
Report and Appendices - Draft
AUTHOR:
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
RECIPIENT:
USAF
DATE:
June 1992
TYPE:
Report
SECOND REFERENCE:
Site 8
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (4.2) #5 001-C.5
LONG TITLE:
Installation Restoration Program, Stage 3C, Init
IRP Site 8, Pease AFB, NH Figures Draft
AUTHOR:
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
RECIPIENT:
USAF
DATE:
June 1992
TYPE:
Figures
SECOND REFERENCE:
Site 8
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (4.2) #6 001-ACR.3
LONG TITLE:
Installation Restoration Program, Stage 3C, Feas
Pease AFB, NH - Technical Report - Draft
Final
AUTHOR:
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
RECIPIENT:
USAF
MK01\RPT:00628026.004\zone5rod.apc
09/09/94
DATE:
August 1992
TYPE:
Report
SECOND REFERENCE:
Site 5
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (4.2) #7 001-5.2.14
LONG TITLE:
Installation Restoration Program, Stage 3C, Feas
Pease AFB, NH - Figures - Draft Final
AUTHOR:
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
RECIPIENT:
USAF
DATE:
August 1992
TYPE:
Figures
SECOND REFERENCE:
Site 5
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (4.2) #8 001-I.3
LONG TITLE:
Installation Restoration Program, Stage 3C, Feas
Pease AFB, NH - Appendices A-I. Draft
Final
AUTHOR:
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
RECIPIENT:
USAF
DATE:
August 1992
TYPE:
Appendices
SECOND REFERENCE:
Site 5
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (4.2) #9 001-B21
LONG TITLE:
Installation Restoration Program, Stage 3C, IRP
Treatability Study Work Plan for Pease
AFB, NH -Draft
AUTHOR:
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
RECIPIENT:
USAF
DATE:
September 1992
TYPE:
Treatability Study Work Plan
SECOND REFERENCE:
Site 8
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (4.2) #10 001-L.4
LONG TITLE:
Installation Restoration Program, Stage 3C, Feas
Pease AFB, NH - Appendices A-L - Draft
AUTHOR:
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
RECIPIENT:
USAF
DATE:
October 1992
TYPE:
Appendices
SECOND REFERENCE:
Site 8
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (4.2) #11 001-5.2.16
LONG TITLE:
Installation Restoration Program, Stage 3C, Feas
Pease AFB, NH, Figures - Draft
AUTHOR:
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
RECIPIENT:
USAF
DATE:
October 1992
TYPE:
Figures
SECOND REFERENCE:
Site 8
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (4.2) #12 001-5.126
LONG TITLE:
Installation Restoration Program, Stage 3C, Feas
Pease AFB, NH, Technical Report - Draft
MK01\RPT:00628026.004\zone5rod.apc
09/09/94
AUTHOR:
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
RECIPIENT:
USAF
DATE:
October 1992
TYPE:
Report
SECOND REFERENCE:
Site 8
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (4.2) #13 001-5.2.9
LONG TITLE:
Installation Restoration Program, Stage 3C, Feas
Pease AFB, NH, - Figures - Draft Final
AUTHOR:
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
RECIPIENT:
USAF
DATE:
November 1992
TYPE:
Report
SECOND REFERENCE:
Site 34
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (4.2) #14 001-J
LONG TITLE:
Installation Restoration Program, Stage 3C, Feas
Pease AFB, NH, - Appendices - Draft
Final
AUTHOR:
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
RECIPIENT:
USAF
DATE:
November 1992
TYPE:
Report
SECOND REFERENCE:
Site 34
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (4.2) #15 001-ACR.3
LONG TITLE:
Installation Restoration Program, Stage 3C, Feas
Pease AFB, NH, - Technical Report Draft Final
AUTHOR:
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
RECIPIENT:
USAF
DATE:
November 1992
TYPE:
Technical Report
SECOND REFERENCE:
Site 34
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (4.2) #16 001-4.2.12
LONG TITLE:
Installation Restoration Program, Stage 3C, Feas
Pease AFB, NH, - Figures - Revised
Draft Final
AUTHOR:
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
RECIPIENT:
USAF
DATE:
October 1993
TYPE:
Figures
SECOND REFERENCE:
Site 32/36
LOCATION:
ARF (Site 32/36 Shelf)
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (4.2) #17 001-ACR.3
LONG TITLE:
U.S. Air Force Installation Restoration Program,
Report Pease AFB, NH, - Revised Draft
Final
AUTHOR:
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
RECIPIENT:
USAF
DATE:
October 1993
TYPE:
Report
SECOND REFERENCE:
Site 32/36
LOCATION:
ARF (Site 32/36 Shelf)
MK01\RPT:00628026.004\zone5rod.apc
09/09/94
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (4.2) #18 001-J.155
LONG TITLE:
U.S. Air Force Installation Restoration Program,
Report, Pease AFB, NH, Appendices Revised Draft Final
AUTHOR:
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
RECIPIENT:
USAF
DATE:
October 1993
TYPE:
Appendices
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
Site 32/36
ARF (Site 32/36 Shelf)
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (4.2) #19 001-Acr.1
LONG TITLE:
United States Air Force Installation Restoration
Initial Screening of Alternative Report Draft
AUTHOR:
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
RECIPIENT:
USAF
DATE:
March 1993
TYPE:
Report
SECOND REFERENCE:
Zone 5
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (4.2) #20 001-E.4
LONG TITLE:
Installation Restoration Program, Stage 4 No Fur
Document for IRP Site 11, Pease AFB, NH 03803
AUTHOR:
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
RECIPIENT:
USAF
DATE:
February 1993
TYPE:
Report
SECOND REFERENCE:
Site 11
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (4.2) #21 001-Acr.3
LONG TITLE:
Installation Restoration Program, Stage 3C Feasi
Pease AFB, NH 03803, Technical Report Draft Final
AUTHOR:
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
RECIPIENT:
USAF
DATE:
January 1993
TYPE:
Report
SECOND REFERENCE:
Site 8
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (4.2) #22 001-5.2-16
LONG TITLE:
Installation Restoration Program, Stage 3C Feasi
Pease AFB, NH 03803. Figures - Draft Final
AUTHOR:
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
RECIPIENT:
USAF
DATE:
January 1993
TYPE:
Figures
SECOND REFERENCE:
Site 8
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (4.2) #23 001-L.6
LONG TITLE:
Installation Restoration Program, Stage 3C Feasi
Pease AFB, NH 03803. Appendices A
through L - Draft Final
AUTHOR:
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
RECIPIENT:
USAF
DATE:
January 1993
TYPE:
Appendices
SECOND REFERENCE:
Site 8
LOCATION:
ARF
MK01\RPT:00628026.004\zone5rod.apc
09/09/94
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (4.2) #24 001-K.5-2
LONG TITLE:
U.S. Air Force Installation Restoration Program
Brook/Lower Newfields Ditch Remedial
Investigation/Feasibility Study - DRAFT FINA
AUTHOR:
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
RECIPIENT:
USAF
DATE:
November 1993
TYPE:
Report
SECOND REFERENCE:
PEA (3.5) 112 001-K.5-2
LOCATION:
ARF (Zone 3 Shelf)
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (4.2) #25 001-MM4B-7
LONG TITLE:
U.S. Air Force Installation Restoration Program
Screening of Alternatives DRAFT
AUTHOR:
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
RECIPIENT:
USAF
DATE:
May 1993
TYPE:
Feasibility Study
SECOND REFERENCE:
Zone 3
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (4.2) #26 001-MM3-9
LONG TITLE:
U.S. Air Force Installation Restoration Program
Screening of Alternatives Report DRAFT
AUTHOR:
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
RECIPIENT:
USAF
DATE:
May 1993
TYPE:
Feasibility Study
SECOND REFERENCE:
Zone 1
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (4.2) #27 001-BA1-4B-2
LONG TITLE:
U.S. Air Force Installation Restoration Program
Screening of Alternatives (Preliminary Draft
Feasibility Study) DRAFT
AUTHOR:
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
RECIPIENT:
USAF
DATE:
June 1993
TYPE:
Feasibility Study
SECOND REFERENCE:
Zone 2
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (4.2) #28 001-MM3B-3
LONG TITLE:
U.S. Air Force Installation Restoration Program
Screening of Alternatives Report DRAFT
AUTHOR:
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
RECIPIENT:
USAF
DATE:
April 1993
TYPE:
Feasibility Study
SECOND REFERENCE:
Zone 4
LOCATION:
ARF
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
Study Report - Draft Final
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
#
PEA (4.2) #29 001-A.8
U.S. Air Force Installation Restoration Program
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
USAF
October 1993
Feasibility Study
MK01\RPT:00628026.004\zone5rod.apc
09/09/94
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
Zone 5
ARF (Zone 5 Shelf)
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (4.2) #30 001-ACR.3
LONG TITLE:
U.S. Air Force Installation Restoration Program
Study Text - DRAFT FINAL
AUTHOR:
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
RECIPIENT:
USAF
DATE:
November 1993
TYPE:
Feasibility Study
SECOND REFERENCE:
Zone 4
LOCATION:
ARF (Zone 4 Shelf)
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (4.2) #31 001-L.11
LONG TITLE:
U.S. Air Force Installation Restoration Program
Study Appendices DRAFT FINAL
AUTHOR:
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
RECIPIENT:
USAF
DATE:
November 1993
TYPE:
Appendices
SECOND REFERENCE:
Zone 4
LOCATION:
ARF (Zone 4 Shelf)
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (4.2) #32 ES-1-ACR-3
LONG TITLE:
U.S. Air Force Installation Restoration Program,
Study Report Text-DRAFT FINAL
AUTHOR:
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
RECIPIENT:
USAF
DATE:
November 1993
TYPE:
Report
SECOND REFERENCE:
Zone 3
LOCATION:
ARF (Zone 3 Shelf)
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (4.2) #33 A-1-L-6
LONG TITLE:
U.S. Air Force Installation Restoration Program,
Study Report Appendices-DRAFT
FINAL
AUTHOR:
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
RECIPIENT:
USAF
DATE:
November 1993
TYPE:
Appendix
SECOND REFERENCE:
Zone 3
LOCATION:
ARF (Zone 3 Shelf)
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (4.2) #34 1-1-TH-5
LONG TITLE:
Haven Pumping Test Letter Report for Pease AFB,
AUTHOR:
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
RECIPIENT:
USAF
DATE:
January 8, 1993
TYPE:
Transmittal Letter, Letter Report
SECOND REFERENCE:
Zone 3
LOCATION:
ARF (Zone 3 Shelf)
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (4.2) #35 1.1-250
LONG TITLE:
Installation Restoration Program, Hangar 227 Tre
Pease Air Force Base, NH
AUTHOR:
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
RECIPIENT:
USAF
DATE:
July 1993
MK01\RPT:00628026.004\zone5rod.apc
09/09/94
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
Report
Zone 3
ARF (Zone 3 Shelf)
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (4.2) #36 iii-ACR.3
LONG TITLE:
U.S. Air Force Installation Restoration Program,
Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study
(also known as Site 45, Old Jet Engine Test
AUTHOR:
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
RECIPIENT:
USAF
DATE:
December 1993
TYPE:
Report
SECOND REFERENCE:
PEA 3.5 #106 ES.1-ACR.3
LOCATION:
ARF (Zone 7 Shelf)
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (4.2) #37 iii-9.2-6
LONG TITLE:
U.S. Air Force Installation Restoration Program,
Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study
Figures-DRAFT FINAL (also known as Site 45,
AUTHOR:
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
RECIPIENT:
USAF
DATE:
December 1993
TYPE:
Figures
SECOND REFERENCE:
PEA 3.5 #107 001-9.2-6
LOCATION:
ARF (Zone 7 Shelf)
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (4.2) #38 a.1-G
LONG TITLE:
U.S. Air Force Installation Restoration Program,
Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study
(also known as Site 45, Old Jet Engine Test
G-DRAFT FINAL
AUTHOR:
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
RECIPIENT:
USAF
DATE:
December 1993
TYPE:
Appendices
SECOND REFERENCE:
PEA 3.5 #108 001-F
LOCATION:
ARF (Zone 7 Shelf)
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (4.2) #39 H.1-I2
LONG TITLE:
U.S. Air Force Installation Restoration Program,
Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study
(also known as Site 45, Old Jet Engine Test
2-DRAFT FINAL
AUTHOR:
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
RECIPIENT:
USAF
DATE:
December 1993
TYPE:
Appendices
SECOND REFERENCE:
PEA 3.5 #109 001-J (K.6-1)
LOCATION:
ARF (Zone 7 Shelf)
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (4.2) #40 001-700
LONG TITLE:
U.S. Air Force Installation Restoration Program,
Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study
(also known as Site 45, Old Jet Engine Test
FINAL
AUTHOR:
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
RECIPIENT:
USAF
DATE:
December 1993
TYPE:
Appendix
SECOND REFERENCE:
PEA (3.5) #110 ES.1-ACR.3
LOCATION:
ARF (Zone 7 Shelf)
#
MK01\RPT:00628026.004\zone5rod.apc
09/09/94
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (4.2) #41 J
LONG TITLE:
U.S. Air Force Installation Restoration Program,
(also known as Site 45, Old Jet Engine
Test Stand) Remedial Investigation/Feasibili
AUTHOR:
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
RECIPIENT:
USAF
DATE:
December 1193
TYPE:
Appendices
SECOND REFERENCE:
PEA (3.5) #111 L.1-Q.2
LOCATION:
ARF (Zone 7 Shelf)
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (4.2) #42 001-A
LONG TITLE:
Performance of the Site 32/36 Pilot Groundwater
Interim Remedial Measure Between July 26
and September 16, 1993
AUTHOR:
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
RECIPIENT:
USAF
DATE:
11 November 1993
TYPE:
Letter Report
SECOND REFERENCE:
Site 32/36
LOCATION:
ARF (Site 32/36 Shelf)
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (4.2) #43 001-047
LONG TITLE:
32/36 DNAPL Detection Well, Pease AFB, NH
AUTHOR:
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
RECIPIENT:
USAF
DATE:
20 December 1993
TYPE:
Treatability Study Letter Report
SECOND REFERENCE:
Site 32/36
LOCATION:
ARF (Site 32/36 Shelf)
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (4.2) #44 001-R.4
LONG TITLE:
U.S. Air Force Installation Restoration Program,
Study Report, Text - DRAFT FINAL
AUTHOR:
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
RECIPIENT:
USAF
DATE:
December 1993
TYPE:
Feasibility Study
SECOND REFERENCE:
Zone 1
LOCATION:
ARF (Zone 1 Shelf)
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (4.2) #45 001-J.7
LONG TITLE:
U.S. Air Force Installation Restoration Program,
Study Report Appendices - DRAFT
FINAL
AUTHOR:
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
RECIPIENT:
USAF
DATE:
December 1993
TYPE:
Feasibility Study
SECOND REFERENCE:
Zone 1
LOCATION:
ARF (Zone 1 Shelf)
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (4.2) #46 K-Q
LONG TITLE:
U.S. Air Force Installation Restoration Program,
Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study
(also known as Site 45, Old Jet Engine Test
DRAFT FINAL
AUTHOR:
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
RECIPIENT:
USAF
DATE:
December 1993
TYPE:
Appendices
MK01\RPT:00628026.004\zone5rod.apc
09/09/94
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
Zone 7
ARF (Zone 7 Shield)
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (4.2) #47 iii-ACR-3
LONG TITLE:
U.S. Air Force Installation Restoration Program,
Feasibility Study Report, Text, DRAFG
FINAL
AUTHOR:
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
RECIPIENT:
USAF
DATE:
December 1993
TYPE:
Text
SECOND REFERENCE:
Zone 2
LOCATION:
ARF (Zone 2 Shelf)
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (4.2) #48 A.1-K.13
LONG TITLE:
U.S. Air Force Installation Restoration Program,
Study Report Appendices
AUTHOR:
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
RECIPIENT:
USAF
DATE:
December 1993
TYPE:
Appendices
SECOND REFERENCE:
Zone 2
LOCATION:
ARF (Zone 2 Shelf)
#
MK01\RPT:00628026.004\zone5rod.apc
09/09/94
4.3
Propose
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (4.3) #1 001-220
LONG TITLE:
"Proposed Plan for Landfill 3, Field Maintenance
Cleaning Site, Fire Department Training Area 1"
AUTHOR:
Roy F. Weston, Inc., Inc.
RECIPIENT:
EPA, NHDES
DATE:
October 1990
TYPE:
Work Plan
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (4.3) #2 1.1-Figure 4
LONG TITLE:
Revised Proposed Plan for IRP Site 5, Landfill 5
Final
AUTHOR:
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
RECIPIENT:
USAF, EPA, NHDES, Public
DATE:
July 1993
TYPE:
Proposed Plan
SECOND REFERENCE:
Landfill 5
LOCATION:
ARF (LF-5 Shelf), IR
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (4.3) #3 001-Figure 5
LONG TITLE:
Installation Restoration Program, Proposed Plans
Pease Air Force Base, NH 03803-0157 Draft Final
AUTHOR:
USAF
RECIPIENT:
USAF,
EPA, NHDES
DATE:
March 1993
TYPE:
Proposed Plan
SECOND REFERENCE:
Site 34
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (4.3) #4 001-Figure 5
LONG TITLE:
Installation Restoration Program, Proposed Plans
Pease Air Force Base, NH 03803-0157 Draft Final
AUTHOR:
USAF
RECIPIENT:
USAF,
EPA, NHDES
DATE:
March 1993
TYPE:
Proposed Plan
SECOND REFERENCE:
Site 32/36
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (4.3) #5 001-G4
LONG TITLE:
Installation Restoration Program, Proposed Plan
AFB, NH - Draft
AUTHOR:
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
RECIPIENT:
USAF
DATE:
January 1994
TYPE:
Proposed Plan
SECOND REFERENCE:
Sites 32/36
LOCATION:
ARF (Site 32/36 Shelf)
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (4.3) #6 001-R1
LONG TITLE:
Installation Restoration Program, Proposed Plan
AUTHOR:
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
MK01\RPT:00628026.004\zone5rod.apc
09/09/94
RECIPIENT:
USAF
DATE:
January 1994
TYPE:
Proposed Plan
SECOND REFERENCE:
Zone 3
LOCATION:
ARF (Zone 3 Shelf)
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (4.3) #7 001-G.3
LONG TITLE:
Installation Restoration Program, Proposed Plan
NH-DRAFT
AUTHOR:
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
RECIPIENT:
USAF
DATE:
October 1993
TYPE:
Proposed Plan
SECOND REFERENCE:
Zone 5
LOCATION:
ARF (Zone 5 Shelf)
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (4.3) #8 001-G.4
LONG TITLE:
Installation Restoration Program, Proposed Plan
NH-DRAFT
AUTHOR:
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
RECIPIENT:
USAF
DATE:
November 1993
TYPE:
Proposed Plan
SECOND REFERENCE:
Zone 4
LOCATION:
ARF (Zone 4 Shelf)
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (4.3) #9 001-R.1
LONG TITLE:
Installation Restoration Program, Proposd Plan f
AUTHOR:
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
RECIPIENT:
USAF
DATE:
January 1994
TYPE:
Proposed Plan
SECOND REFERENCE:
Zone 1
LOCATION:
ARF (Zone 1 Shelf)
#
MK01\RPT:00628026.004\zone5rod.apc
09/09/94
4.4
NOTE:
Supplements and Revision
NO ENTRIES IN THIS SECTION AT THIS TIME
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
#
MK01\RPT:00628026.004\zone5rod.apc
09/09/94
4.5
Correspondence
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (4.5) #1 001-006
LONG TITLE:
"IRP Proposed Plan for Landfill 3, Field Mainten
Cleaning Site, Fire Department Training Area
1 (October 1990, draft) Review Comments"
AUTHOR:
State of New Hampshire, Department of Environmen
RECIPIENT:
Air Force
DATE:
27 November 1990
TYPE:
State of New Hampshire Review Comments
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (4.5) #2 001-016
LONG TITLE:
"EPA Region I comments on the IRP Proposed Plan
Maintenance Squadron Equipment Cleaning Site,
Fire Department Training Area 1 (October 199
AUTHOR:
U.S. EPA
RECIPIENT:
Air Force
DATE:
28 November 1990
TYPE:
EPA Review Comments
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (4.5) #3 001-008
LONG TITLE:
"EPA Region I additional comments on the IRP pro
field maintenance squadron equipment
cleaning site, Fire Department Training Area
AUTHOR:
U.S. EPA
RECIPIENT:
Air Force
DATE:
3 December 1990
TYPE:
Review Comments
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (4.5) #4 001-001
LONG TITLE:
Submittal of Draft Final Primary Document, Landf
AUTHOR:
USAF
RECIPIENT:
Richard Pease, NHDES
DATE:
Unknown
TYPE:
Letter
SECOND REFERENCE:
Landfill 5
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (4.5) #5 001-002
LONG TITLE:
Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requireme
AUTHOR:
Richard Pease, NHDES
RECIPIENT:
Art Ditto, Pease AFB
DATE:
25 November 1991
TYPE:
Letter
SECOND REFERENCE:
Pea (6.4)
LOCATION:
ARf
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (4.5) #6 001-001
LONG TITLE:
Submittal of Secondary Document
AUTHOR:
USAF
RECIPIENT:
Richard Pease, NHDES
MK01\RPT:00628026.004\zone5rod.apc
09/09/94
DATE:
09 January 1992
TYPE:
Letter
SECOND REFERENCE:
Site 32/36; Site 34
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (4.5) #7 001-001
LONG TITLE:
Submittal of Secondary Document
AUTHOR:
USAF
RECIPIENT:
Johanna Hunter, USEPA
DATE:
09 January 1992
TYPE:
Letter
SECOND REFERENCE:
Site 32/36; Site 34
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (4.5) #8 001-001
LONG TITLE:
Landfill 3 Decision Document
AUTHOR:
USAF
RECIPIENT:
Edward S. Barnes
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
1 Weston Way
West Chester, PA 19380
DATE:
03 February 1992
TYPE:
Letter
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (4.5) #9 001-004
LONG TITLE:
Jet Engine Test Cell Source Area Feadibility Stu
AUTHOR:
Edward S. Barnes, Roy F. Weston, Inc.
RECIPIENT:
USAF
Johanna Hunter USEPA
Richard Pease, NHDES
DATE:
04 May 1992
TYPE:
Letter
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (4.5) #10 001-005
LONG TITLE:
Pease AFB Site 32/36 Feasibility Study Report
AUTHOR:
Edward S. Barnes, Roy F. Weston, Inc.
RECIPIENT:
USAF
Johanna Hunter, USEPA
Richard Pease, NHDES
DATE:
15 May 1992
TYPE:
Letter
SECOND REFERENCE:
Site 32/36
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (4.5) #11 001-001
LONG TITLE:
Submittal of Draft Primary Document, Site 32/36
AUTHOR:
USAF
RECIPIENT:
Johanna Hunter, USEPA
DATE:
19 May 1992
TYPE:
Letter
SECOND REFERENCE:
Site 32/36
MK01\RPT:00628026.004\zone5rod.apc
09/09/94
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (4.5) #12 001-001
LONG TITLE:
Submittal of Draft Primary Document, Site 32/36
AUTHOR:
USAF
RECIPIENT:
Richard Pease, NHDES
DATE:
19 May 1992
TYPE:
Letter
SECOND REFERENCE:
Site 32/36
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (4.5) #13 001-001
LONG TITLE:
Request for Deadline Extension for Review of the
Report Dataed April 1992
AUTHOR:
Johanna M. Hunter, USEPA
RECIPIENT:
Art Ditto, Pease AFB
DATE:
22 May 1992
TYPE:
Letter
SECOND REFERENCE:
Site 5
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (4.5) #14 001-001
LONG TITLE:
Document Submittals
AUTHOR:
USAF
RECIPIENT:
Johanna Hunter, USEPA
Richard Pease, NHDES
DATE:
26 May 1992
TYPE:
Letter
SECOND REFERENCE:
Pea (10.1); Site 34
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (4.5) #15 001-002
LONG TITLE:
Selection of Remedial Action Alternative for JET
AUTHOR:
USAF
RECIPIENT:
Johanna Hunter, USEPA
Richard Pease, NHDES
DATE:
28 May 1992
TYPE:
Letter
SECOND REFERENCE:
Site 34
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (4.5) #16 001-001
LONG TITLE:
Submittal of Draft Secondary Document, Site 8 In
AUTHOR:
USAF
RECIPIENT:
Johanna Hunter, USEPA
DATE:
24 June 1992
TYPE:
Letter
SECOND REFERENCE:
Site 8
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (4.5) #17 001-001
LONG TITLE:
Submittal of Draft Secondary Document, Site 8 In
AUTHOR:
USAF
RECIPIENT:
Richard Pease, NHDES
DATE:
24 June 1992
MK01\RPT:00628026.004\zone5rod.apc
09/09/94
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
Letter
Site 8
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (4.5) #18 001-002
LONG TITLE:
Feasibility Study Reports
AUTHOR:
USAF
RECIPIENT:
Johanna Hunter, USEPA
Richard Pease, NHDES
DATE:
10 August 1992
TYPE:
Letter
SECOND REFERENCE:
Sites 5, 34, and 32/36
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (4.5) #19 001-001
LONG TITLE:
Submittal of Landfill 5 Draft Proposed Plan
AUTHOR:
USAF
RECIPIENT:
Johanna Hunter, USEPA
DATE:
12 August 1992
TYPE:
Letter
SECOND REFERENCE:
Landfill 5
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (4.5) #20 001-001
LONG TITLE:
Submittal of Landfill 5 Draft Proposed Plan
AUTHOR:
USAF
RECIPIENT:
Richard Pease, NHDES
DATE:
12 August 1992
TYPE:
Letter
SECOND REFERENCE:
Landfill 5
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (4.5) #21 001-003
LONG TITLE:
Landfill 5 Source Area Draft Final Feasibility S
AUTHOR:
Edward S. Barnes, Roy F. Weston, Inc.
RECIPIENT:
USAF
Johanna Hunter, USEPA
Richard Pease, NHDES
DATE:
14 August 1992
TYPE:
Letter
SECOND REFERENCE:
Landfill 5
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (4.5) #22 001-001
LONG TITLE:
Submittal of Draft Final Primary Document, Landf
AUTHOR:
USAF
RECIPIENT:
Johanna Hunter, USAF
DATE:
18 August 1992
TYPE:
Letter
SECOND REFERENCE:
Landfill 5
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (4.5) #23 001-001
LONG TITLE:
Submittal of Draft Final Primary Document, Landf
MK01\RPT:00628026.004\zone5rod.apc
09/09/94
AUTHOR:
USAF
RECIPIENT:
Richard Pease, NHDES
DATE:
18 August 1992
TYPE:
Letter
SECOND REFERENCE:
Landfill 5
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (4.5) #24 001-004
LONG TITLE:
Pease Air Force Base Site 8 Draft Feasibility St
AUTHOR:
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
RECIPIENT:
USAF
NHDES
USEPA
DATE:
29 October 1992
TYPE:
Letter
SECOND REFERENCE:
Site 8
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (4.5) #25 001-001
LONG TITLE:
Submittal of Draft Primary Document, Site 8 Feas
AUTHOR:
USAF
RECIPIENT:
Johanna Hunter, USEPA
DATE:
3 November 1992
TYPE:
Letter
SECOND REFERENCE:
Site 8
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (4.5) #26 001-001
LONG TITLE:
Submittal of Draft Primary Document, Site 8 Feas
AUTHOR:
USAF
RECIPIENT:
Richard Pease, NHDES
DATE:
3 November 1992
TYPE:
Letter
SECOND REFERENCE:
Site 8
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (4.5) #27 001-001
LONG TITLE:
Landfill 5 Draft Proposed Plan
AUTHOR:
USAF
RECIPIENT:
Johanna Hunter, USEPA
Richard Pease, NHDES
DATE:
17 November 1992
TYPE:
Letter
SECOND REFERENCE:
Landfill 5
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (4.5) #28 001-002
LONG TITLE:
Pease Air Force Base Draft Final IRP Site 34 FS
AUTHOR:
Edward S. Barnes, Roy F. Weston, Inc.
RECIPIENT:
USAF
Johanna Hunter, USEPA
Richard Pease, NHDES
DATE:
20 November 1992
TYPE:
Letter
SECOND REFERENCE:
Site 34
MK01\RPT:00628026.004\zone5rod.apc
09/09/94
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (4.5) #29 001-001
LONG TITLE:
Submittal of Draft Final Primary Document, Site
AUTHOR:
USAF
RECIPIENT:
Johanna Hunter, USEPA
DATE:
24 November 1992
TYPE:
Letter
SECOND REFERENCE:
Site 34
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (4.5) #30 001-001
LONG TITLE:
Submittal of Draft Final Primary Document, Site
AUTHOR:
USAF
RECIPIENT:
Richard Pease, NHDES
DATE:
24 November 1992
TYPE:
Letter
SECOND REFERENCE:
Site 34
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (4.5) #31 001-001
LONG TITLE:
Determination of Site Boundaries at the Time of
Implementation (Will Migrate to Proposal)
AUTHOR:
USAF
RECIPIENT:
Johanna Hunter, USEPA
Richard Pease, NHDES
DATE:
2 December 1992
TYPE:
Letter
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (4.5) #32 001-002
LONG TITLE:
Request for Deadline Extension
AUTHOR:
USAF
RECIPIENT:
Johanna Hunter, USEPA
Richard Pease, NHDES
DATE:
4 December 1992
TYPE:
Letter
SECOND REFERENCE:
Site 34
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (4.5) #33 001-001
LONG TITLE:
Site 34 GWTP ITIR
AUTHOR:
USAF
RECIPIENT:
Johanna Hunter, USEPA
Richard Pease, NHDES
DATE:
9 December 1992
TYPE:
Letter
SECOND REFERENCE:
Site 34
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (4.5) #34 001-002
LONG TITLE:
Pease Air Force Base Draft Final IRP Site 32/36
AUTHOR:
Lee dePersia, Roy F. Weston, Inc.
RECIPIENT:
Jim Snyder, USAF
MK01\RPT:00628026.004\zone5rod.apc
09/09/94
DATE:
10 December 1992
TYPE:
Letter
SECOND REFERENCE:
Site 32/36
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (4.5) #35 001-001
LONG TITLE:
Submittal of Draft Final Primary Document, Site
AUTHOR:
USAF
RECIPIENT:
Richard Pease, NHDES
DATE:
14 December 1992
TYPE:
Letter
SECOND REFERENCE:
Site 32/36
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (4.5) #36 001-001
LONG TITLE:
Submittal of Draft Final Primary Document, Site
AUTHOR:
USAF
RECIPIENT:
Johanna Hunter, USEPA
DATE:
14 December 1992
TYPE:
Letter
SECOND REFERENCE:
Site 32/36
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (4.5) #37 001-001
LONG TITLE:
Submittal of Buildings 113/119 and Building 222
AUTHOR:
USAF
RECIPIENT:
Richard Pease, NHDES
DATE:
16 December 1992
TYPE:
Letter
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (4.5) #38 001-001
LONG TITLE:
Submittal of Buildings 113/119 and Building 222
AUTHOR:
USAF
RECIPIENT:
Johanna Hunter, USEPA
DATE:
16 December 1992
TYPE:
Letter
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (4.5) #39 001-001
LONG TITLE:
Submittal of the Draft Site 8 Proposed Plan
AUTHOR:
USAF
RECIPIENT:
Richard Pease, NHDES
Johanna Hunter, USEPA
DATE:
23 March 1993
TYPE:
Letter
SECOND REFERENCE:
Site 8
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (4.5) #40 001-001
LONG TITLE:
Submittal of Draft Secondary Document, Zone 5 In
Alternatives
AUTHOR:
USAF
MK01\RPT:00628026.004\zone5rod.apc
09/09/94
RECIPIENT:
Richard Pease, NHDES
DATE:
12 March 1993
TYPE:
Letter
SECOND REFERENCE:
Zone 5
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (4.5) #41 001-001
LONG TITLE:
Submittal of Draft Secondary Document, Zone 5 In
Alternatives
AUTHOR:
USAF
RECIPIENT:
Johanna Hunter, USEPA
DATE:
12 March 1993
TYPE:
Letter
SECOND REFERENCE:
Zone 5
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (4.5) #42 001-001
LONG TITLE:
Submittal of the Sites 32/36 and 34 Draft Final
AUTHOR:
USAF
RECIPIENT:
Johanna Hunter, USEPA
Richard Pease, NHDES
DATE:
9 March 1993
TYPE:
Letter
SECOND REFERENCE:
Site 32/36; Site 34
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (4.5) #43 001-004
LONG TITLE:
Selection of Remedial Action Alternatives for Si
AUTHOR:
NHDES
RECIPIENT:
Art Ditto, AFBDA
DATE:
12 February 1993
TYPE:
Letter
SECOND REFERENCE:
PEA (6.3)
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (4.5) #44 001-002
LONG TITLE:
Submittal of the Sites 32/36 and 34 Draft Propos
AUTHOR:
USAF
RECIPIENT:
Johanna Hunter, EPA
Richard Pease, NHDES
DATE:
03 February 1993
TYPE:
Letter
SECOND REFERENCE:
PEA (6.3); Sites 32/36; Site 34
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (4.5) #45 001-001
LONG TITLE:
Submittal of Draft Final Primary Document, Site
AUTHOR:
USAF
RECIPIENT:
Johanna Hunter, EPA
DATE:
29 February 1993
TYPE:
Letter
SECOND REFERENCE:
Site 8
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (4.5) #46 001-001
MK01\RPT:00628026.004\zone5rod.apc
09/09/94
LONG TITLE:
Submittal of Draft Final Primary Document, S
AUTHOR:
USAF
RECIPIENT:
Richard Pease, NHDES
DATE:
29 January 1993
TYPE:
Letter
SECOND REFERENCE:
Site 8
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (4.5) #47 001-002
LONG TITLE:
Site 32/36 and Sit 34 Draft Final Proposed Plans
AUTHOR:
NHDES
RECIPIENT:
Art Ditto, AFBDA
DATE:
12 February 1993
TYPE:
Letter
SECOND REFERENCE:
Sites 32/36; Site 34; Pea (4.3)
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (4.5) #48 001-001
LONG TITLE:
Submittal of Draft Secondary Document, Zone 4 In
Alternatives
AUTHOR:
Arthur Ditto, Pease AFB
RECIPIENT:
Johanna Hunter, EPA Region 1
DATE:
5 April 1993
TYPE:
Letter
SECOND REFERENCE:
Zone 4
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (4.5) #49 001-001
LONG TITLE:
Submittal of Draft Secondary Document, Zone 4 In
Alternatives
AUTHOR:
Arthur Ditto, Pease AFB
RECIPIENT:
Richard Pease, NHDES
DATE:
5 April 1993
TYPE:
Letter
SECOND REFERENCE:
Zone 4
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (4.5) #50 001-001
LONG TITLE:
Submittal of Draft Secondary Document, Zone 3 In
Alternatives
AUTHOR:
Arthur Ditto, Pease AFB
RECIPIENT:
Johanna Hunter, EPA Region 1
DATE:
17 May 1993
TYPE:
Letter
SECOND REFERENCE:
Zone 3
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (4.5) #51 001-001
LONG TITLE:
Submittal of Draft Secondary Document, Zone 3 In
Alternatives
AUTHOR:
Arthur Ditto, Pease AFB
RECIPIENT:
Richard Pease, NHDES
DATE:
17 May 1993
TYPE:
Letter
SECOND REFERENCE:
Zone 3
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (4.5) #52 001-001
MK01\RPT:00628026.004\zone5rod.apc
09/09/94
LONG TITLE:
Submittal of Draft Secondary Document, Zone
Alternatives
AUTHOR:
Arthur Ditto, Pease AFB
RECIPIENT:
Richard Pease, NHDES
DATE:
3 June 1993
TYPE:
Letter
SECOND REFERENCE:
Zone 1
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (4.5) #53 001-001
LONG TITLE:
Submittal of Draft Secondary Document, Zone 1 In
Alternatives
AUTHOR:
Arthur Ditto, Pease AFB
RECIPIENT:
Mike Daly, EPA Region 1
DATE:
3 June 1993
TYPE:
Letter
SECOND REFERENCE:
Zone 1
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (4.5) #54 001-001
LONG TITLE:
Submittal of Proposed Plans for Landfills 2 and
AUTHOR:
Arthur Ditto, Pease AFB
RECIPIENT:
Mike Daly, EPA Region 1
Richard Pease, NHDES
DATE:
25 June 1993
TYPE:
Letter
SECOND REFERENCE:
LF-2, LF-4, LF-5
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (4.5) #55 001-001
LONG TITLE:
Submittal of Draft Primary Document, Zone 5 Draf
AUTHOR:
Arthur Ditto, Pease AFB
RECIPIENT:
Richard Pease, NHDES
DATE:
14 July 1993
TYPE:
Letter
SECOND REFERENCE:
Zone 5
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (4.5) #56 001-001
LONG TITLE:
Submittal of Draft Primary Document, Zone 5 Draf
AUTHOR:
Arthur Ditto, Pease AFB
RECIPIENT:
Mike Daly, EPA Region 1
DATE:
14 July 1993
TYPE:
Letter
SECOND REFERENCE:
Zone 5
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (4.5) #57 001-002
LONG TITLE:
Submittal of the Revised Site 8 Proposed Plan
AUTHOR:
Arthur Ditto, Pease AFB
RECIPIENT:
Mike Daly, EPA Region 1
Richard Pease, NHDES
DATE:
28 July 1993
TYPE:
Letter
SECOND REFERENCE:
Site 8
LOCATION:
ARF
#
MK01\RPT:00628026.004\zone5rod.apc
09/09/94
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (4.5) #58 001-003
LONG TITLE:
Former Pease AFB, Surface Water Issues
AUTHOR:
Richard Pease, NHDES
RECIPIENT:
Arthur Ditto, Pease AFB
DATE:
29 November 1993
TYPE:
Letter
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF (Section 4.5 Biner)
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (4.5) #59 001-001
LONG TITLE:
Site 8, Fire Department Training Area #2, Chemic
AUTHOR:
Arthur Ditto, Pease AFB
RECIPIENT:
Michael Daly, EPA
DATE:
29 November 1993
TYPE:
Letter
SECOND REFERENCE:
Site 8
LOCATION:
ARF (Section 4.5 Binder)
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (4.5) #60 001-012
LONG TITLE:
Construction - Phase Water Treatment and Disposa
AUTHOR:
Ed Shorely, CH2M Hill
RECIPIENT:
Arthur Ditto, Pwase AFB
DATE:
3 December 1993
TYPE:
Memorandum with Attachments
SECOND REFERENCE:
LF-6
LOCATION:
ARF (Section 4.5 Binder)
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (4.5) #61 001-011
LONG TITLE:
Request for Deadline Extension, Zone 2 Proposed
AUTHOR:
Arthur Ditto, Pease AFB
RECIPIENT:
Michael Daly, EPA Region I
Richard Pease, NHDES
DATE:
3 February 1994
TYPE:
Letter
SECOND REFERENCE:
Zone 2
LOCATION:
ARF (Section 4.5 Binder)
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (4.5) #62 001-007
LONG TITLE:
Groundwater Treatment Plant Influent/Effluent Re
AUTHOR:
Arthur Ditto, Pease AFB
RECIPIENT:
Bill Wandle, EPA Region I
Jeff Andrews, NHDES
DATE:
24 January 1994
TYPE:
Letter Report
SECOND REFERENCE:
Site 32/36; Site 34
LOCATION:
ARF (Section ____ Binder)
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (4.5) #61 001-001
LONG TITLE:
Groundwater Treatment Plant Influent/Effluent Re
AUTHOR:
Arthur Ditto, Pease AFB
RECIPIENT:
Bill Wandle, EPA
Jeff Andrews, NHDES
DATE:
9 December 1993
TYPE:
Letter
SECOND REFERENCE:
Sites 32/36; Site 34; Site 39
MK01\RPT:00628026.004\zone5rod.apc
09/09/94
LOCATION:
ARF (Section 4.5 Binder)
#
MK01\RPT:00628026.004\zone5rod.apc
09/09/94
5.1
R
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (5.1) #1 001-12.1
LONG TITLE:
U.S. Air Force Installation Restoration Program,
Decision for a Source Area Remedial Action at
Site 34
AUTHOR:
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
RECIPIENT:
USAF
DATE:
September 1993
TYPE:
ROD
SECOND REFERENCE:
Site 34
LOCATION:
ARF (Site 34 Shelf)
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (5.1) #2 001-12.1
LONG TITLE:
U.S. Air Force Installation Restoration Program,
Decision for a Source Area Remedial Action at
Landfill 5
AUTHOR:
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
RECIPIENT:
USAF
DATE:
September 1993
TYPE:
ROD
SECOND REFERENCE:
LF-5
LOCATION:
ARF (LF-5 Shelf)
#
MK01\RPT:00628026.004\zone5rod.apc
09/09/94
5.2
* NOTE:
Amemdments to R
NO ENTRIES IN THIS SECTION AT THIS TIME
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
#
MK01\RPT:00628026.004\zone5rod.apc
09/09/94
5.3
* NOTE:
Explanations of Signi
NO ENTRIES IN THIS SECTION AT THIS TIME
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
#
MK01\RPT:00628026.004\zone5rod.apc
09/09/94
5.4
Corresponden
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (5.4) #1 001-001
LONG TITLE:
Region 1 ROD Model Language
AUTHOR:
USAF
RECIPIENT:
Johanna Hunter, USEPA
DATE:
Unknown
TYPE:
Letter
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (5.4) #2 001-001
LONG TITLE:
Submittal of Draft Primary Document, Site 34 Rec
AUTHOR:
Arthur Ditto, Pease AFB
RECIPIENT:
Mike Daly, EPA Region 1
DATE:
17 June 1993
TYPE:
Letter
SECOND REFERENCE:
Site 34
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (5.4) #3 001-001
LONG TITLE:
Submittal of Draft Primary Document, Site 34 Rec
AUTHOR:
Arthur Ditto, Pease AFB
RECIPIENT:
Richard Pease, NHDES
DATE:
17 June 1993
TYPE:
Letter
SECOND REFERENCE:
Site 34
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (5.4) #4 001-002
LONG TITLE:
Pease AFB IRP ROD Review Process
AUTHOR:
Arthur Ditto, Pease AFB
RECIPIENT:
AFBCA/NE
DATE:
15 December 1993
TYPE:
Letter
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF (Section 5.4 Binder)
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (5.4) #5 001-002
LONG TITLE:
Getting to a ROD, Revised Milestones
AUTHOR:
Arthur Ditto, Pease AFB
RECIPIENT:
Michael Daly, EPA Region I
Richard Pease, NHDES
DATE:
4 February 1994
TYPE:
Letter
SECOND REFERENCE:
Zone 1; Zone 2; Zone 3; Zone 4
Site 32/36
LOCATION:
ARF (Section 5.4 Binder)
#
MK01\RPT:00628026.004\zone5rod.apc
09/09/94
6.1
Cooperative Agre
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (6.1) #1 001-013
LONG TITLE:
"Memorandum of Understanding Executed Between th
NH, and Pease Air Force Base, NH"
AUTHOR:
Town of Newington/Pease Air Force Base
RECIPIENT:
Air Force
DATE:
22 August 1980
TYPE:
Memorandum of Understanding
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (6.1) #2 001-004
LONG TITLE:
"Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the U
Occupational and Environmental Health Laboratory
(USAFOEHL) and Pease Air Force Base relating
AUTHOR:
U.S. Department of the Air Force
RECIPIENT:
Air Force
DATE:
31 July 1987
TYPE:
Memorandum of Understanding
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF
#
MK01\RPT:00628026.004\zone5rod.apc
09/09/94
6.2
Federal Facility A
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (6.2) #1 001-097
LONG TITLE:
"Federal Facility Agreement under CERCLA Section
AUTHOR:
U.S. EPA, Region I, State of New Hampshire and t
of the Air Force"
RECIPIENT:
EPA, NHDES, Air Force
DATE:
24 April 1991
TYPE:
Federal Facility Agreement
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (6.2) #2 001-003
LONG TITLE:
"Remedial Project Managers Meeting Minutes"
AUTHOR:
Pease Air Force Base
RECIPIENT:
See Distribution List
DATE:
16 January 1991
TYPE:
Meeting Minutes
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF, IR
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (6.2) #3 001-003
LONG TITLE:
"Remedial Project Managers Meeting Minutes"
AUTHOR:
Pease Air Force Base
RECIPIENT:
See Distribution List
DATE:
20 February 1991
TYPE:
Meeting Minutes
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF, IR
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (6.2) #4 001-003
LONG TITLE:
"Remedial Project Managers Meeting Minutes"
AUTHOR:
Pease Air Force Base
RECIPIENT:
See Distribution List
DATE:
20 March 1991
TYPE:
Meeting Minutes
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF, IR
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (6.2) #5 001-002
LONG TITLE:
"Remedial Project Managers Meeting Minutes"
AUTHOR:
Pease Air Force Base
RECIPIENT:
See Distribution List
DATE:
17 April 1991
TYPE:
Meeting Minutes
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF, IR
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (6.2) #6 001-002
LONG TITLE:
"Remedial Project Managers Meeting Minutes"
AUTHOR:
Pease Air Force Base
RECIPIENT:
See Distribution List
DATE:
21 May 1991
TYPE:
Meeting Minutes
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
MK01\RPT:00628026.004\zone5rod.apc
09/09/94
LOCATION:
ARF, IR
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (6.2) #7 001-002
LONG TITLE:
"Remedial Project Managers Meeting Minutes"
AUTHOR:
Pease Air Force Base
RECIPIENT:
See Distribution List
DATE:
24 June 1991
TYPE:
Meeting Minutes
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF, IR
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (6.2) #8 001-II.4
LONG TITLE:
Modification 1 to Pease AFB Federal Facilities A
AUTHOR:
USAF
RECIPIENT:
Michael Daly, EPA Region I
Richard Pease, NHDES
DATE:
8 September 1993
TYPE:
FFA Modification
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF, (Section 6.2 Binder)
#
MK01\RPT:00628026.004\zone5rod.apc
09/09/94
6.3
Coordinatio
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (6.3) #1 001-003
LONG TITLE:
"Meeting minutes from Air Force meeting with sta
Air Force Base IRP"
AUTHOR:
U.S. Air Force
RECIPIENT:
See Distribution List
DATE:
11 March 1987
TYPE:
Meeting Minutes
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (6.3) #2 001-002
LONG TITLE:
"Agenda for Meeting with State DES, Air Force, a
AUTHOR:
Pease Air Force Base
RECIPIENT:
See Distribution List
DATE:
26 April 1990
TYPE:
Agenda
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (6.3) #3 001-031
LONG TITLE:
"Completed Applications for Department of the Ar
and New Hampshire Wetlands Board
Permit"
AUTHOR:
Department of the Air Force
RECIPIENT:
Army Corps of Engineers, New England Divisi
DATE:
31 August 1989
TYPE:
Letter and Attachments
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (6.3) #4 001-002
LONG TITLE:
"Letter regarding emergency discharge exclusion
permit under the National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES)"
AUTHOR:
US EPA
RECIPIENT:
Air Force
DATE:
29 September 1989
TYPE:
Letter
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (6.3) #5 001-002
LONG TITLE:
"Letter in response to Air Force question regard
proposed landfill cleanup operation"
AUTHOR:
Department of the Army
RECIPIENT:
Air Force
DATE:
17 October 1989
TYPE:
Letter
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (6.3) #6 001-001
LONG TITLE:
"Agenda and Notes for Working Meeting with U.S.
Hampshire"
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
US Air Force
See Distribution List
21 November 1989
MK01\RPT:00628026.004\zone5rod.apc
09/09/94
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
Agenda and Meeting Notes
None
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (6.3) #7 001-025
LONG TITLE:
"Letter response to Air Force letter of 22 Augus
remedial actions at Pease Air Force Base, 404
permit not required"
AUTHOR:
Department of the Army
RECIPIENT:
Air Force
DATE:
3 October 1990
TYPE:
Response Letter
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (6.3) #8 001-033
LONG TITLE:
"Point Paper on Installation Restoration Program
(Prepared for a meeting of J. Coit and
M. Aldrich, of Senator Humphrey's office, wi
OEHL)"
AUTHOR:
Pease Air Force Base
RECIPIENT:
J. Coit & M. Aldrich of Senator Humphre's O
DATE:
31 March 1989
TYPE:
Letter
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (6.3) #9 001-003
LONG TITLE:
"Recommendation to Pease AFB on the National Pri
AUTHOR:
Department of the Air Force
RECIPIENT:
US EPA
DATE:
27 June 1989
TYPE:
Letter
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (6.3) #10 001-004
LONG TITLE:
Remedial Project Managers' Meeting Minutes of Ja
AUTHOR:
Arthur Ditto, RPM
USAF/Pease AFB
RECIPIENT:
U.S. EPA/NHDES/USAF Attendees
DATE:
Meeting Date: 16 January 1991
TYPE:
Meeting Minutes
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (6.3) #11 001-004
LONG TITLE:
Remedial Project Managers' Meeting Minutes of Fe
AUTHOR:
Arthur Ditto, RPM
USAF/Pease AFB
RECIPIENT:
U.S. EPA/NHDES/USAF Attendees
DATE:
Meeting Date: 20 February 1991
TYPE:
Meeting Minutes
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (6.3) #12 001-004
MK01\RPT:00628026.004\zone5rod.apc
09/09/94
LONG TITLE:
Remedial Project Managers' Meeting Minutes
AUTHOR:
USAF
RECIPIENT:
See Distribution
DATE:
20 March 1991
TYPE:
Meeting Minutes
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (6.3) #13 001-004
LONG TITLE:
Remedial Project Managers' Meeting Minutes of Ap
AUTHOR:
Arthur Ditto, RPM
USAF/Pease AFB
RECIPIENT:
U.S. EPA/NHDES/USAF Attendees
DATE:
17 April 1991
TYPE:
Meeting Minutes
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (6.3) #14 001-003
LONG TITLE:
Remedial Project Managers' Meeting Minutes of Ma
AUTHOR:
Arthur Ditto, RPM
USAF/Pease AFB
RECIPIENT:
U.S. EPA/NHDES/USAF Attendees
DATE:
21 May 1991
TYPE:
Meeting Minutes
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (6.3) #15 001-004
LONG TITLE:
Notification of Additional Investigative Work in
AUTHOR:
USAF
RECIPIENT:
NHDES
Wetlands Board
P.O. Box 2008
Concord, NH 03301-3406
DATE:
14 June 1991
TYPE:
Letter
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (6.3) #16 001-003
LONG TITLE:
Remedial Project Managers' Meeting Minutes of Ju
AUTHOR:
Arthur Ditto, RPM
USAF/Pease AFB
RECIPIENT:
U.S. EPA/NHDES/USAF Attendees
DATE:
24 June 1991
TYPE:
Meeting Minutes
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (6.3) #17 001-003
LONG TITLE:
Remedial Project Managers' Meeting Minutes of Au
AUTHOR:
Arthur Ditto, RPM
USAF/Pease AFB
RECIPIENT:
U.S. EPA/NHDES/USAF Attendees
MK01\RPT:00628026.004\zone5rod.apc
09/09/94
DATE:
24 July 1991
TYPE:
Meeting Minutes
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (6.3) #18 001-004
LONG TITLE:
Remedial Project Managers' Meeting Minutes of Se
AUTHOR:
Arthur Ditto, RPM
USAF/Pease AFB
RECIPIENT:
U.S. EPA/NHDES/USAF Attendees
DATE:
21 August 1991
TYPE:
Meeting Minutes
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (6.3) #19 001-004
LONG TITLE:
Remedial Project Managers' Meeting Minutes
AUTHOR:
Arthur Ditto, RPM
USAF/Pease AFB
RECIPIENT:
U.S. EPA/NHDES/USAF Attendees
DATE:
26 September 1991
TYPE:
Meeting Minutes
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (6.3) #20 001-004
LONG TITLE:
Remedial Project Managers' Meeting Minutes
AUTHOR:
Arthur Ditto, RPM
USAF/Pease AFB
RECIPIENT:
U.S. EPA/NHDES/USAF Attendees
DATE:
27 October 1991
TYPE:
Meeting Minutes
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (6.3) #21 001-003
LONG TITLE:
Remedial Project Managers' Meeting Minutes
AUTHOR:
Arthur Ditto, RPM
USAF/Pease AFB
RECIPIENT:
U.S. EPA/NHDES/USAF Attendees
DATE:
20 November 1991
TYPE:
Meeting Minutes
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (6.3) #22 001-003
LONG TITLE:
Remedial Project Managers' Meeting Minutes of Ja
AUTHOR:
Arthur Ditto, RPM
USAF/Pease AFB
RECIPIENT:
U.S. EPA/NHDES/USAF Attendees
DATE:
19 December 1991
TYPE:
Meeting Minutes
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF
#
MK01\RPT:00628026.004\zone5rod.apc
09/09/94
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (6.3) #23 001-003
LONG TITLE:
Remedial Project Managers' Meeting Minutes
AUTHOR:
Arthur Ditto, RPM
USAF/Pease AFB
RECIPIENT:
U.S. EPA/NHDES/USAF Attendees
DATE:
27 January 1992
TYPE:
Meeting Minutes
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (6.3) #24 001-003
LONG TITLE:
Remedial Project Managers' Meeting Minutes
AUTHOR:
Arthur Ditto, RPM
USAF/Pease AFB
RECIPIENT:
U.S. EAP/NHDES/USAF Attendees
DATE:
25 February 1992
TYPE:
Meeting Minutes
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (6.3) #25 001-002
LONG TITLE:
Remedial Project Managers' Meeting Minutes
AUTHOR:
Arthur Ditto, RPM
USAF/Pease AFB
RECIPIENT:
U.S. EPA/NHDES/USAF Attendees
DATE:
07 April 1992
TYPE:
Meeting Minutes
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (6.3) #26 001-004
LONG TITLE:
NH Wetlands Permit for National Priorities List
AUTHOR:
USAF
RECIPIENT:
NHDES
Wetlands Board
P.O. Box 2008
Concord, NH 03301-2008
DATE:
24 April 1992
TYPE:
Letter
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (6.3) #27 001-002
LONG TITLE:
Remedial Project Managers' Meeting Minutes
AUTHOR:
USAF
RECIPIENT:
See Distribution
DATE:
22 April 1992
TYPE:
Minutes
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (6.3) #28 001-008
LONG TITLE:
Remedial Project Managers' Meeting Minutes, June
AUTHOR:
Arthur Ditto, RPM
USAF/Pease AFB
MK01\RPT:00628026.004\zone5rod.apc
09/09/94
RECIPIENT:
U.S. EPA/NHDES/USAF Attendees
DATE:
3 June 1992
TYPE:
Meeting Minutes
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (6.3) #29 001-003
LONG TITLE:
Remedial Project Managers' Meeting Minutes of Au
AUTHOR:
Arthur Ditto, RPM
USAF/Pease AFB
RECIPIENT:
U.S. EPA/NHDES/USAF Attendees
DATE:
Meeting Date: 21 August 1992
TYPE:
Meeting Minutes
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (6.3) #30 001-003
LONG TITLE:
Remedial Project Managers' Meeting Minutes - Sep
AUTHOR:
Arthur Ditto, RPM
USAF/Pease AFB
RECIPIENT:
U.S. EPA/NHDES/USAF Attendees
DATE:
10 September 1992
TYPE:
Meeting Minutes
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (6.3) #31 001-002
LONG TITLE:
New Hampshire Sites Where SVE is Used for NAPL R
AUTHOR:
John Regan, NHDES
RECIPIENT:
Art Ditto, Pease AFB
Mike Daly, USEPA
Richard Pease, NHDES
Scott Doane, NHDES
DATE:
30 September 1992
TYPE:
Letter
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (6.3) #32 001-002
LONG TITLE:
Remedial Project Managers' Meeting Minutes - Oct
AUTHOR:
Arthur Ditto, RPM
RECIPIENT:
EPA, NHDES, USAF
Attendees
DATE:
20 October 1992
TYPE:
Minutes
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (6.3) #33 001-003
LONG TITLE:
Application of the Reasonable Maximum Exposure (
Request for Site Specific Justification for
Using the "Average Maximum"
AUTHOR:
Richard Pease, NHDES
RECIPIENT:
Art Ditto, Pease AFB
Johanna Hunter, USEPA
Capt. Woerhle, AFCEE
MK01\RPT:00628026.004\zone5rod.apc
09/09/94
DATE:
22 October 1992
TYPE:
Letter
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (6.3) #34 001-001
LONG TITLE:
Guidebook for Environmental Permits in New Hamps
AUTHOR:
Richard Pease, NHDES
RECIPIENT:
Art Ditto, Pease AFB
Johanna Hunter, USEPA
DATE:
4 November 1992
TYPE:
Letter
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (6.3) #35 001-004
LONG TITLE:
Newington Water Quality Sampling on October 14,
Performed on October 28, 1992, NHDES Sample
#220009
AUTHOR:
Scott Doane, NHDES
RECIPIENT:
Wayne Wood, Newington, NH
Richard Pease, NHDES
Mark McKenzie, Pease AFB
DATE:
11 December 1992
TYPE:
Letter
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (6.3) #36 001-Attachment 6
LONG TITLE:
Quarterly Report, Second Quarter 1991
AUTHOR:
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
RECIPIENT:
EPA, NHDES, USAF
DATE:
19 July 1991
TYPE:
Quarterly Report
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF, Art Ditto's office files
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (6.3) #37 001-034
LONG TITLE:
Quarterly Report, Third Quarter 1991
AUTHOR:
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
RECIPIENT:
EPA, NHDES, USAF
DATE:
24 October 1991
TYPE:
Quarterly Report, Transmittal Letters
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF, Art Ditto's office files
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (6.3) #38 001-030
LONG TITLE:
Quarterly Report, Fourth Quarter 1991
AUTHOR:
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
RECIPIENT:
EPA, NHDES, USAF
DATE:
14 January 1992
TYPE:
Quarterly Report
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF, Art Ditto's office files
#
MK01\RPT:00628026.004\zone5rod.apc
09/09/94
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (6.3) #39 001-020
LONG TITLE:
Quarterly Report, First Quarter 1992
AUTHOR:
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
RECIPIENT:
EPA, NHDES, USAF
DATE:
15 April 1992
TYPE:
Quarterly Report
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF, Art Ditto's office files
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (6.3) #40 001-032
LONG TITLE:
Quarterly Report, Second Quarter 1992
AUTHOR:
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
RECIPIENT:
EPA, NHDES, USAF
DATE:
14 July 1992
TYPE:
Quarterly Report
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF, Art Ditto's office files
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (6.3) #41 001-043
LONG TITLE:
Quarterly Report, Third Quarter 1992
AUTHOR:
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
RECIPIENT:
EPA, NHDES, USAF
DATE:
20 October 1992
TYPE:
Quarterly Report
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF, Art Ditto's office files
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (6.3) #42 001-Q4
LONG TITLE:
Transmittal Letter for Quarterly Progress Report
AUTHOR:
Art Ditto, RPM, Pease AFB
RECIPIENT:
Johanna Hunter, RPM, USEPA Region 1
Richard Pease, RPM, NHDES
DATE:
19 January 1993
TYPE:
Transmittal Letter and Quarterly Report
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF, Art Ditto's office files
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (6.3) #43 001-E.1
LONG TITLE:
Quarterly Progress Report for Pease AFB
AUTHOR:
Art Ditto, RPM, Pease AFB
RECIPIENT:
Johanna Hunter, RPM, USEPA Region 1
Richard Pease, RPM, NHDES
DATE:
26 April 1993
TYPE:
Report
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF
#
MK01\RPT:00628026.004\zone5rod.apc
09/09/94
6.4
General Corres
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (6.4) #1 001-003
LONG TITLE:
"Wetlands Application No. 89-1805"
AUTHOR:
State of New Hampshire, Department of Environmen
Water Supply and Pollution Control Division
RECIPIENT:
State of New Hampshire
DATE:
14 September 1989
TYPE:
Letter
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (6.4) #2 001-001
LONG TITLE:
"Request for information for wetlands permit"
AUTHOR:
State of New Hampshire, Department of Environmen
RECIPIENT:
Air Force
DATE:
18 September 1989
TYPE:
Letter
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (6.4) #3 001-001
LONG TITLE:
"Letter regarding the approval of permit No. Wpp
remediation"
AUTHOR:
State of New Hampshire, Department of Environmen
RECIPIENT:
Air Force
DATE:
11 October 1989
TYPE:
Letter
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (6.4) #4 001-005
LONG TITLE:
"Air Force Letter to the Wetlands Board regardin
modification to the wetlands permitted
scope of work"
AUTHOR:
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
RECIPIENT:
Delbert Downing, Wetlands Board, Concord, N
DATE:
21 November 1989
TYPE:
Letter
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (6.4) #5 001-010
LONG TITLE:
"Letter to EPA regarding background information
AUTHOR:
US Department of Commerce
RECIPIENT:
Air Force via US EPA
DATE:
7 March 1990
TYPE:
Letter
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (6.4) #6 001-001
LONG TITLE:
File # 92-679; CERCLA Related Temporary Fill of
at Pease AFB, NH
AUTHOR:
Kenneth N. Kettenring
NHDES
Wetlands Board
P.O. Box 2008
MK01\RPT:00628026.004\zone5rod.apc
09/09/94
Concord, NH 03302-2008
RECIPIENT:
Art Ditto, Pease AFB
DATE:
26 May 1992
TYPE:
Letter
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (6.4) #7 001-002
LONG TITLE:
State Review Comments to Site 8 Initial Screenin
of TSCA Regulation of PCBs
AUTHOR:
Richard Pease, NHDES
RECIPIENT:
Art Ditto, Pease AFB
DATE:
11 August 1992
TYPE:
Letter
SECOND REFERENCE:
PEA (10.10); PEA (4.2)
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (6.4) #8 001-019
LONG TITLE:
Lab results of groundwater samples from monitori
and 08-6024.
AUTHOR:
NHDES
RECIPIENT:
Art Ditto, Pease AFB
DATE:
11 February 1993
TYPE:
Letter w/ attachment
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (6.4) #9 001-041
LONG TITLE:
Quarterly Progress Report, Period of Performance
1993
AUTHOR:
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
RECIPIENT:
USAF
DATE:
October 1993
TYPE:
Report
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF (Section 6.4 Binder)
#
MK01\RPT:00628026.004\zone5rod.apc
09/09/94
7.1
* NOTE:
Enforcement Hi
NO ENTRIES IN THIS SECTION AT THIS TIME
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
#
MK01\RPT:00628026.004\zone5rod.apc
09/09/94
7.2
* NOTE:
Endangerment Asse
NO ENTRIES IN THIS SECTION AT THIS TIME
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
#
MK01\RPT:00628026.004\zone5rod.apc
09/09/94
7.3
Administrati
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (7.3) #1 001-II.3
LONG TITLE:
Pease AFB Federal Facilites Agreement Modificati
AUTHOR:
USAF
RECIPIENT:
Pease AFB
EPA Region 1
NHDES
NH Attorney General
DATE:
January 1993
TYPE:
FFA Modification
SECOND REFERENCE:
none
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
#
MK01\RPT:00628026.004\zone5rod.apc
09/09/94
7.4
*
NOTE:
Consent Decr
NO ENTRIES IN THIS SECTION AT THIS TIME
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
#
MK01\RPT:00628026.004\zone5rod.apc
09/09/94
7.5
* NOTE:
Affidavi
NO ENTRIES IN THIS SECTION AT THIS TIME
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
#
MK01\RPT:00628026.004\zone5rod.apc
09/09/94
7.6
* NOTE:
Documentation of Technical Di
NO ENTRIES IN THIS SECTION AT THIS TIME
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
#
MK01\RPT:00628026.004\zone5rod.apc
09/09/94
7.7
* NOTE:
Notices, Letters, a
NO ENTRIES IN THIS SECTION AT THIS TIME
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
#
MK01\RPT:00628026.004\zone5rod.apc
09/09/94
8.1
ATSDR Health
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (8.1) #1 001-B1
LONG TITLE:
Installation Restoration Program, Stage 3C Healt
Volume I Draft
AUTHOR:
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
RECIPIENT:
USAF
DATE:
September 1991
TYPE:
Health Assessment
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
#
MK01\RPT:00628026.004\zone5rod.apc
09/09/94
8.2
Toxicol
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (8.2) #1 001-ZN4
LONG TITLE:
Installation Restoration Program Stage 4 Toxicit
Base, NH 03803
AUTHOR:
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
RECIPIENT:
USAF
DATE:
January 1993
TYPE:
Toxicity Profiles
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF, IR
#
MK01\RPT:00628026.004\zone5rod.apc
09/09/94
8.3
General Correspondenc
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (8.3) #1 001-001
LONG TITLE:
Health Assessment Split Sample
AUTHOR:
NHDES
RECIPIENT:
Art Ditto, Pease AFB
DATE:
26 July 1991
TYPE:
Letter
SECOND REFERENCE:
PEA (6.4)
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (8.3) #2 001-001
LONG TITLE:
Health Assessment Report for Pease AFB
AUTHOR:
USAF
RECIPIENT:
Leslie Campbell
ATSDR
Mail Stop E-32
1600 Clifton Road
Atlanta, GA. 30333
DATE:
26 June 1992
TYPE:
Letter
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF
#
MK01\RPT:00628026.004\zone5rod.apc
09/09/94
9.1
* NOTE:
Notices Issu
NO ENTRIES IN THIS SECTION AT THIS TIME
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
#
MK01\RPT:00628026.004\zone5rod.apc
09/09/94
9.2
Findings of F
* NOTE:
NO ENTRIES IN THIS SECTION AT THIS TIME
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
#
MK01\RPT:00628026.004\zone5rod.apc
09/09/94
9.3
Reports
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (9.3) #1 001-015
LONG TITLE:
Landfill 5 Closure Wetlands Assessment and Mitig
AUTHOR:
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
RECIPIENT:
USAF
DATE:
November 1993
TYPE:
Report
SECOND REFERENCE:
Landfill 5
LOCATION:
ARF (LF-5 Shelf)
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
#
MK01\RPT:00628026.004\zone5rod.apc
09/09/94
9.4
General Correspondence
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (9.4) #1 001-001
LONG TITLE:
Landfill 5 Wetlands Assessment and Mitigation Re
AUTHOR:
Arthur Ditto, Pease AFB
RECIPIENT:
Michael Daly, EPA
Richard Pease, NHDES
DATE:
3 December 1993
TYPE:
Letter
SECOND REFERENCE:
LF-5
LOCATION:
ARF (Section 9.4 Binder)
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
#
MK01\RPT:00628026.004\zone5rod.apc
09/09/94
10.1
Comments and Re
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (10.1) #1 001-005
LONG TITLE:
"Response to Comments - Draft Final Community Re
AUTHOR:
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
RECIPIENT:
Air Force
DATE:
7 February 1991
TYPE:
Letter/Response to Comments
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (10.1) #2 001-003
LONG TITLE:
Draft Community Relations Plan Comments
AUTHOR:
Richard Pease, P.E.
RPM, NHDES
RECIPIENT:
Arthur Ditto, P.E.
RPM, U.S. Air Force
DATE:
30 November 1990
TYPE:
Letter Comment Report
SECOND REFERENCE:
Community Relations
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (10.1) #3 001-010
LONG TITLE:
EPA Region 1 Comments to IRP Draft Community Rel
AUTHOR:
Douglas S. Gutto
U.S. EPA Region 1
Superfund Community Relations
RECIPIENT:
Arthur Ditto, RPM
U.S. Air Force
Pease AFB
DATE:
7 December 1990
TYPE:
Letter Comment Report
SECOND REFERENCE:
Community Relations
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (10.1) #4 001-011
LONG TITLE:
EPA Comments on Pease AFB Community Relations Pl
Responses
AUTHOR:
Individual Unknown (From Air Force)
RECIPIENT:
U.S. Air Force
DATE:
January 1991
TYPE:
Comment Report
SECOND REFERENCE:
Community Relations
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (10.1) #5 001-004
LONG TITLE:
NHDES Comments on Pease AFB Community Relations
Responses
AUTHOR:
Individual Unknown (Through Air Force)
RECIPIENT:
U.S. Air Force
DATE:
January 1991
TYPE:
Comment Report
SECOND REFERENCE:
Community Relations
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (10.1) #6 001-002
MK01\RPT:00628026.004\zone5rod.apc
09/09/94
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
Review of Draft (Revised) Final Report IRP C
Johanna Hunter, RPM
U.S. EPA, Region 1
RECIPIENT:
Arthur Ditto, RPM
U.S. Air Force
Pease AFB
DATE:
25 March 1991
TYPE:
Letter
SECOND REFERENCE:
Community Relations
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (10.1) #7 001-003
LONG TITLE:
Comments Remaining Unresolved for Stage 4 Work P
AUTHOR:
Mark McKenzie, Pease AFB
RECIPIENT:
Lee dePersia, Roy F. Weston, Inc.
DATE:
05 May 1991
TYPE:
Comments
SECOND REFERENCE:
PEA (3.1)
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (10.1) #8 001-002
LONG TITLE:
Oversight Comments on the Soil Boring/Piezometer
AUTHOR:
Scott Doane
John Reagan
NHDES
RECIPIENT:
Arthur Ditto, P.E.
RPM, U.S. Air Force
Pease AFB
DATE:
13 April 1992
TYPE:
Letter
SECOND REFERENCE:
CRD-1
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (10.1) #9 001-002
LONG TITLE:
Preliminary Assessment/Site Inspection Draft Fac
AUTHOR:
Richard Pease, NHDES
RECIPIENT:
Arthur Ditto, Pease AFB
DATE:
17 April 1992
TYPE:
Comments
SECOND REFERENCE:
PEA (10.6); PEA (6.3)
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (10.1) #10 001-002
LONG TITLE:
Review of Zone 2 Monitoring Well Installation Mo
AUTHOR:
Richard Pease
RPM, NHDES
RECIPIENT:
Arthur Ditto
RPM, U.S. Air Force
Pease AFB
DATE:
28 April 1992
TYPE:
Letter
SECOND REFERENCE:
Zone 2
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (10.1) #11 001-021
MK01\RPT:00628026.004\zone5rod.apc
09/09/94
LONG TITLE:
Portsmoutn, NH
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
Response to Comments on Zone 4, Site Charact
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
USAF
EPA
DATE:
May 1992
TYPE:
Response to Comments
SECOND REFERENCE:
PEA (3.6)
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (10.1) #12 001-003
LONG TITLE:
Review Comments for Stage 4 Work Plan Addendum N
AUTHOR:
Richard H. Pease, P.E.
RPM, NHDES
RECIPIENT:
Arthur Ditto, P.E.
RPM, USAF
Pease AFB
DATE:
08 May 1992
TYPE:
Letter
SECOND REFERENCE:
PEA (3.3)
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (10.1) #13 001-014
LONG TITLE:
Review Comments for Stage 4 Work Plan and Sampli
Addendum Number 2
AUTHOR:
Michael Daly
U.S. EPA Region 1
Federal Facilities Superfund Section
RECIPIENT:
Arthur Ditto, RPM
U.S. Air Force
Pease AFB
DATE:
14 May 1992
TYPE:
Transmittal Sheet, Letter and Comment Report
SECOND REFERENCE:
PEA (3.1); PEA (3.3)
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (10.1) #14 001-013
LONG TITLE:
Review of Stage 4 Work Plan and Sampling and Ana
Number 2 for Pease AFB
AUTHOR:
Michael J. Daly
U.S. EPA Region 1
Federal Facilities Superfund Section
RECIPIENT:
Arthur Ditto, RPM
U.S. Air Force/Pease AFB
DATE:
14 May 1992
TYPE:
Letter with Comment Report
SECOND REFERENCE:
PEA (3.1); PEA (3.3)
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (10.1) #15 001-006
LONG TITLE:
Zone 4 Site Characterization Summary, May 1992 R
AUTHOR:
Richard Pease, NHDES
RECIPIENT:
Arthur Ditto, Pease AFB
DATE:
02 June 1992
TYPE:
Comments
SECOND REFERENCE:
PEA (6.3); Zone 4
LOCATION:
ARF
#
MK01\RPT:00628026.004\zone5rod.apc
09/09/94
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (10.1) #16 001-006
LONG TITLE:
Zone 3 Site Characterization Summary, May 1992 R
AUTHOR:
Richard Pease, NHDES
RECIPIENT:
Arthur Ditto, Pease AFB
DATE:
11 June 1992
TYPE:
Comments
SECOND REFERENCE:
PEA (6.3); Zone 3
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (10.1) #16 001-006
LONG TITLE:
Zone 3 Site Characterization Summary, May 1992 R
AUTHOR:
Richard Pease, NHDES
RECIPIENT:
Arthur Ditto, Pease AFB
DATE:
11 June 1992
TYPE:
Comments
SECOND REFERENCE:
PEA (6.3); Zone 3
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (10.1) #17 001-009
LONG TITLE:
Review of the Zone 3 Site Characterization Summa
Portsmouth, NH - May 1992
AUTHOR:
Michael Daly, USEPA
RECIPIENT:
Arthur Ditto, Pease AFB
DATE:
11 June 1992
TYPE:
Comments
SECOND REFERENCE:
Zone 3
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (10.1) #18 001-003
LONG TITLE:
Site 32/36 Letter Report Comments
AUTHOR:
Richard Pease, NHDES
RECIPIENT:
Arthur Ditto, Pease AFB
DATE:
15 June 1992
TYPE:
Comments
SECOND REFERENCE:
PEA (6.3); Site 32/36
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (10.1) #19 001-015
LONG TITLE:
Review of the Stage 3C Feasibility Study for IRP
Portsmouth, NH May 1992
AUTHOR:
Michael J. Daly, USEPA
RECIPIENT:
Arthur Ditto, Pease AFB
DATE:
18 June 1992
TYPE:
Comments
SECOND REFERENCE:
Site 34
LOCATION:
ARF
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
Portsmouth, NH - May 1992
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
#
PEA (10.1) #20 001-012
Review of the Draft Stage 3C Feasibility Study f
Johanna Hunter, USEPA
Arthur Ditto, Pease AFB
01 July 1992
Comments
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
ARF
Site 32/36
#
MK01\RPT:00628026.004\zone5rod.apc
09/09/94
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (10.1) #21 001-003
LONG TITLE:
AOC 32/36 Draft Final Remedial Investigation Jun
AUTHOR:
Richard Pease, NHDES
RECIPIENT:
Arthur Ditto, Pease AFB
DATE:
08 July 1992
TYPE:
Comments
SECOND REFERENCE:
Site 32/36
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (10.1) #22 001-006
LONG TITLE:
Issues Needing Resolution for the Draft Final Re
Landfill 5, Dated April 1992
AUTHOR:
USAF
RECIPIENT:
Johanna Hunter, USEPA
DATE:
28 July 1992
TYPE:
Response to Comments
SECOND REFERENCE:
Landfill 5
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (10.1) #23 001-011
LONG TITLE:
Review of Draft Zone 4 Site Characterization Sum
AUTHOR:
Johanna Hunter, RPM
U.S. EPA, Region 1
RECIPIENT:
Arthur Ditto
RPM, USAF
Pease AFB
DATE:
1 August 1992
TYPE:
Transmittal Letter with Comment Report
SECOND REFERENCE:
Zone 4; PEA (3.5)
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (10.1) #24 001-003
LONG TITLE:
Comments on Haven Pump Test Design and Piezoment
AUTHOR:
Richard Pease, NHDES
RECIPIENT:
Arthur Ditto, Pease AFB
DATE:
7 August 1992
TYPE:
Comments
SECOND REFERENCE:
PEA (6.3)
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (10.1) #25 001-007
LONG TITLE:
Stage 3C Review of Initial Screening of Alternat
Training Area, Pease Air Force Base, NH Draft, June 1992
AUTHOR:
Johanna Hunter, USEPA
RECIPIENT:
Arthur Ditto, Pease AFB
DATE:
10 August 1992
TYPE:
Comments
SECOND REFERENCE:
Site 8
LOCATION:
ARF
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
#
PEA (10.1) #26 001-002
Haven Well Pump Test at Pease Air Force Base, NH
Johanna Hunter, USEPA
Arthur Ditto, Pease AFB
11 August 1992
Comments
MK01\RPT:00628026.004\zone5rod.apc
09/09/94
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (10.1) #27 001-002
LONG TITLE:
Stage 4 Work Plan Addendum 3 Review Comments
AUTHOR:
Richard Pease, NHDES
RECIPIENT:
Arthur Ditto, Pease AFB
DATE:
14 August 1992
TYPE:
Comments
SECOND REFERENCE:
PEA (6.3)
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (10.1) #28 001-006
LONG TITLE:
Haven Well Test Response to Comments
AUTHOR:
James G. Spratt, Roy F. Weston, Inc.
RECIPIENT:
Mark McKenzie, Pease AFB
DATE:
17 August 1992
TYPE:
Response to Comments
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (10.1) #29 001-026
LONG TITLE:
Response to Comments on Zone 3 Site Characteriza
AUTHOR:
Lee dePersia
Task Manager
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
RECIPIENT:
Capt. Carl Woerhle
U.S. Air Force
Base Closure Division
Air Force Center for Environmental Excellenc
DATE:
1 September 1992
TYPE:
Letter with Comment Report
SECOND REFERENCE:
Zone 3; PEA (3.4)
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (10.1) #30 001-002
LONG TITLE:
Review Comments of Draft Landfill 5 Source Area
AUTHOR:
Richard H. Pease, P.E.
RPM, NHDES
RECIPIENT:
Arthur Ditto, P.E.
RPM, USAF
Pease AFB
DATE:
10 September 1992
TYPE:
Letter
SECOND REFERENCE:
LF-5; PEA (4.3)
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (10.1) #31 001-003
LONG TITLE:
Review of Letter Report Re:
Extraction System at Site 32/36
AUTHOR:
Johanna Hunter, RPM
U.S. EPA, Region 1
RECIPIENT:
Arthur Ditto, RPM
USAF/Pease AFB
DATE:
22 September 1992
TYPE:
Letter
Addition of Bedrock
MK01\RPT:00628026.004\zone5rod.apc
09/09/94
SECOND REFERENCE:
Site 32/36; PEA (2.7)
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (10.1) #32 001-023
LONG TITLE:
Response to Comments on Zone 4 Site Characteriza
AUTHOR:
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
Through U.S. Air Force (Art Ditto)
RECIPIENT:
Johanna Hunter, RPM
U.S. EPA, Region 1
and
Richard Pease, RPM
NHDES
DATE:
30 September 1992
TYPE:
Transmittal Letters with Letter Report
SECOND REFERENCE:
Zone 4; PEA (3.5)
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (10.1) #33 001-006
LONG TITLE:
Review of Stage 3C Soil Vapor Extraction Treatab
Site 8 - September 1992
AUTHOR:
Michael J. Daly
U.S. EPA Region 1
Federal Facilities Superfund Section
RECIPIENT:
Arthur Ditto
RPM, USAF
Pease AFB
DATE:
30 September 1992
TYPE:
Letter with 2 Attachments
SECOND REFERENCE:
Site 8; PEA (2.0)
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (10.1) #34 001-002
LONG TITLE:
Review comments on Stage 3C, Letter Report for I
Remediation System
AUTHOR:
Richard H. Pease, P.E.
RPM, NHDES
RECIPIENT:
Arthur Ditto, P.E.
RPM, USAF
Pease AFB
DATE:
1 October 1992
TYPE:
Letter
SECOND REFERENCE:
Site 34; PEA (2.7)
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (10.1) #35 001-001
LONG TITLE:
Review Comments for Landfill 3 - No Further Acti
AUTHOR:
Richard H. Pease, P.E.
RPM, NHDES
RECIPIENT:
Arthur Ditto, P.E.
RPM, USAF
Pease AFB
DATE:
2 October 1992
TYPE:
Letter
SECOND REFERENCE:
Zone 1
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (10.1) #36 001-001
MK01\RPT:00628026.004\zone5rod.apc
09/09/94
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
Review Comments for Landfill 3 (IRP Site 3)
Richard H. Pease, P.E.
RPM, NHDES
RECIPIENT:
Arthur Ditto, P.E.
RPM, NHDES
Pease AFB
DATE:
2 October 1992
TYPE:
Letter
SECOND REFERENCE:
Zone 1
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (10.1) #37 001-002
LONG TITLE:
Proposed Locations for Additional Monitoring Wel
AUTHOR:
Scott Doane, Hydrogeologist NHDES
and
John Regan, Supervisor NHDES
RECIPIENT:
Arthur Ditto, RPM, USAF
Pease AFB
DATE:
9 October 1992
TYPE:
Letter
SECOND REFERENCE:
Site 8; PEA (3.1)
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (10.1) #38 001-032
LONG TITLE:
Response to Comments; Site 8 Initial Screening o
AUTHOR:
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
through U.S. Air Force (Arthur Ditto)
RECIPIENT:
Johanna Hunter, RPM
U.S. EPA, Region 1
and
Richard Pease
RPM, NHDES
DATE:
13 October 1992
TYPE:
Transmittal Letters with 2 Attachments
SECOND REFERENCE:
Site 8; PEA (3.5)
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (10.1) #39 001-003
LONG TITLE:
NHDES Response to Comments to Site 42 Final Site
Kaiser Engineers Portsmoutn Waste to Energy
Plant, dated July 1992
AUTHOR:
Richard H. Pease, P.E.
RPM, NHDES
RECIPIENT:
Arthur Ditto, P.E.
RPM, USAF
DATE:
22 October 1992
TYPE:
Letter
SECOND REFERENCE:
Site 42; PEA (1.4)
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (10.1) #40 001-006
LONG TITLE:
Response to Comments, Stage 4 Work Plan and Samp
Addendum 2
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
Arthur Ditto, RPM
U.S. Air Force
Pease AFB
Johanna Hunter, RPM
U.S. EPA, Region 1
MK01\RPT:00628026.004\zone5rod.apc
09/09/94
and
Richard Pease, RPM
NHDES
DATE:
3 November 1992
TYPE:
Letter
SECOND REFERENCE:
PEA (3.3); PEA (3.1)
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (10.1) #41 001-002
LONG TITLE:
EPA Review of IRP Stage 4, No Further Action Dec
for Site 3
AUTHOR:
Johanna Hunter, RPM
U.S. EPA Region 1
RECIPIENT:
Arthur Ditto, RPM
U.S. Air Force
Pease AFB
DATE:
5 November 1992
TYPE:
Letter
SECOND REFERENCE:
Site 3
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (10.1) #42 001-003
LONG TITLE:
Comments on Pease Off-Base Well Inventory Letter
AUTHOR:
Richard H. Pease, P.E.
RPM, NHDES
RECIPIENT:
Arthur Ditto, P.E.
RPM, U.S. Air Force
Pease AFB
DATE:
12 November 1992
TYPE:
Letter
SECOND REFERENCE:
Zone 2; Zone 5; Site 8
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (10.1) #43 001-003
LONG TITLE:
Review Comments for Stage 3B, Informal Technical
Site 32/36
AUTHOR:
Richard H. Pease, P.E.
RPM, NHDES
RECIPIENT:
Arthur Ditto, P.E.
RPM, U.S. Air Force
Pease AFB
DATE:
13 November 1992
TYPE:
Letter
SECOND REFERENCE:
Site 32/36
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (10.1) #44 001-002
LONG TITLE:
Review of Stage 4 Sampling and Analysis Plan Add
AUTHOR:
Michael J. Daly
U.S. EPA, Region 1
Federal Facilities Superfund Section
RECIPIENT:
Arthur Ditto, P.E.
RPM, U.S. Air Force
Pease AFB
DATE:
23 November 1992
TYPE:
Letter
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF
MK01\RPT:00628026.004\zone5rod.apc
09/09/94
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (10.1) #45 001-001
LONG TITLE:
Comments on Zone 2 Site Characterization Study
AUTHOR:
Michael J. Daly
U.S. EPA, Region 1
Federal Facilities Section
RECIPIENT:
Mark McKenzie
USAF
Pease AFB
DATE:
24 November 1992
TYPE:
Letter (Fax)
SECOND REFERENCE:
Zone 2
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (10.1) #46 001-005
LONG TITLE:
Review Comments of Stage 4, Site Characterizatio
AUTHOR:
Richard H. Pease, P.E.
RPM, NHDES
RECIPIENT:
Arthur Ditto, P.E.
RPM, U.S. Air Force
Pease AFB
DATE:
30 November 1992
TYPE:
Letter
SECOND REFERENCE:
Zone 2
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (10.1) #47 001-002
LONG TITLE:
Review Comments of Stage 4, Site Characterizatio
AUTHOR:
Richard H. Pease, P.E.
RPM, NHDES
RECIPIENT:
Arthur Ditto, P.E.
RPM, U.S. Air Force
Pease AFB
DATE:
1 December 1992
TYPE:
Letter
SECOND REFERENCE:
Zone 5
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (10.1) #48 001-003
LONG TITLE:
Review Comments of Stage 4, Site Characterizatio
AUTHOR:
Richard H. Pease, P.E.
RPM, NHDES
RECIPIENT:
Arthur Ditto, P.E.
RPM, U.S. Air Force
Pease AFB
DATE:
1 December 1992
TYPE:
Letter Comment Report
SECOND REFERENCE:
LF-4; Zone 1; LF-2
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (10.1) #49 001-008
LONG TITLE:
Review of Zone 2 and Zone 5, Site Characterizati
AUTHOR:
Michael J. Daly
U.S. EPA, Region 1
Federal Facilities Superfund Section
MK01\RPT:00628026.004\zone5rod.apc
09/09/94
RECIPIENT:
Arthur Ditto, P.E.
U.S. Air Force
Pease AFB
DATE:
4 December 1992
TYPE:
Letter with Comment Reports
SECOND REFERENCE:
Zone 2; Zone 5
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (10.1) #50 001-004
LONG TITLE:
Review of Zone 1, Site Characterization Summary
AUTHOR:
Michael J. Daly
U.S. EPA, Region 1
Federal Facilities Superfund Section
RECIPIENT:
Arthur Ditto, P.E.
RPM, USAF
Pease AFB
DATE:
9 December 1992
TYPE:
Letter
SECOND REFERENCE:
Zone 1; PEA (3.5)
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (10.1) #51 001-004
LONG TITLE:
Review of the Zone 1 Site Characterization Summa
AUTHOR:
Michael J. Daly
U.S. EPA, Region 1
Federal Facilities Superfund Section
RECIPIENT:
Arthur Ditto, RPM
U.S. Air Force
Pease AFB
DATE:
9 December 1992
TYPE:
Letter with Comment Report
SECOND REFERENCE:
Zone 1
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (10.1) #52 001-001
LONG TITLE:
Comments on Zone 2 Pumping Test Letter Report
AUTHOR:
Michael J. Daly
U.S. EPA, Region 1
Federal Facilities Section
RECIPIENT:
Arthur Ditto, RPM
USAF/Pease AFB
DATE:
10 December 1992
TYPE:
Fax
SECOND REFERENCE:
Zone 2
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (10.1) #53 001-004
LONG TITLE:
EPA Review of IRP LF-5, Draft Proposed Plan, Nov
AUTHOR:
Johanna Hunter, RPM
U.S. EPA, Region 1
RECIPIENT:
Arthur Ditto, RPM
USAF, Pease AFB
DATE:
17 December 1992
TYPE:
Letter
SECOND REFERENCE:
LF-5; PEA (4.3)
LOCATION:
ARF
MK01\RPT:00628026.004\zone5rod.apc
09/09/94
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (10.1) #54 001-002
LONG TITLE:
Review Comments/Pease AFB Railroad Track (Site 4
Report
AUTHOR:
Richard H. Pease, P.E.
RPM, NHDES
RECIPIENT:
Arthur Ditto, P.E.
RPM, U.S. Air Force
Pease AFB
DATE:
4 January 1993
TYPE:
Letter Report
SECOND REFERENCE:
Site 46
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (10.1) #55 001-002
LONG TITLE:
Response to Comments, LF-5 Draft Proposed Plan a
AUTHOR:
Arthur Ditto, RPM
U.S. Air Force
RECIPIENT:
Johanna Hunter, RPM
U.S. EPA, Region 1
DATE:
5 January 1993
TYPE:
Letter
SECOND REFERENCE:
LF-5
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (10.1) #56 001-004
LONG TITLE:
Comments on Stage 3C Feasibility Study for Site
1992
AUTHOR:
Richard H. Pease, P.E.
NHDES
RECIPIENT:
Arthur Ditto, P.E.
RPM, USAF
DATE:
11 January 1993
TYPE:
Letter
SECOND REFERENCE:
Site 32/36
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (10.1) #57 001-004
LONG TITLE:
Review Comments for Draft Proposed Plans for IRP
December 1992
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
Richard H. Pease, P.E.
NHDES
Arthur Ditto, P.E.
RPM, USAF
DATE:
14 January 1993
TYPE:
Letter
SECOND REFERENCE:
Sites 34, 32/36
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (10.1) #58 001-006
LONG TITLE:
EPA Review of Draft Final Feasibility Study for
1992
AUTHOR:
Johanna Hunter, RPM, USEPA Region 1
RECIPIENT:
Arthur Ditto, RPM, USAF, Pease AFB
DATE:
19 January 1993
TYPE:
Letter
SECOND REFERENCE:
Site 32/36
LOCATION:
ARF
#
MK01\RPT:00628026.004\zone5rod.apc
09/09/94
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (10.1) #59 001-005
LONG TITLE:
EPA Review of USAF IRP, Draft Proposed Plans for
December 1992
AUTHOR:
Johanna Hunter, RPM, USEPA Region 1
RECIPIENT:
Arthur Ditto, RPM, USAF, Pease AFB
DATE:
21 January 1993
TYPE:
Letter
SECOND REFERENCE:
Sites 34, 32/36
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (10.1) #60 001-004
LONG TITLE:
Additional Review Comments on Draft Proposed Pla
Draft Final Feasibility Study for IRP Site 34,
Draft Final Feasibility Study for IRP Site 3
AUTHOR:
Richard Pease, RPM, NHDES
RECIPIENT:
Arthur Ditto, RPM, USAF, Pease AFB
DATE:
25 January 1993
TYPE:
Letter
SECOND REFERENCE:
Sites 34, 32/36
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (10.1) #61 001-002
LONG TITLE:
Review Comments of Pease AFB Preliminary Finding
Tissue Analysis
AUTHOR:
Richard Pease, RPM, NHDES
RECIPIENT:
Arthur Ditto, RPM, USAF, Pease AFB
DATE:
21 January 1993
TYPE:
Letter
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (10.1) #62 001-002
LONG TITLE:
Review of the Air Force Selection of Remedial Ac
8, FDTA #2, dated January 8, 1993
AUTHOR:
EPA, Region 1
RECIPIENT:
Arthur Ditto, AFBDA
DATE:
26 February 1993
TYPE:
Letter
SECOND REFERENCE:
Site 8
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (10.1) #63 001-004
LONG TITLE:
Review of Site 8 Draft Final Feasibility Study I
03801, Draft January 1993
AUTHOR:
EPA, Region 1
RECIPIENT:
Arthur Ditto, AFBDA
DATE:
26 February 1993
TYPE:
Letter and Comments
SECOND REFERENCE:
Site 8
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (10.1) #64 001-003
LONG TITLE:
EPA Review of the Air Force Installation Restora
Final Proposed Plans for IRP Sites 32/36
and 34, Pease Air Force Base - March 1993
AUTHOR:
EPA, Region 1
RECIPIENT:
Arthur Ditto, AFBDA
DATE:
10 February 1993
TYPE:
Letter and Comments
SECOND REFERENCE:
Sites 32/36; Site 34
LOCATION:
ARF
#
MK01\RPT:00628026.004\zone5rod.apc
09/09/94
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (10.1) #65 001-001
LONG TITLE:
Submittal of Responses to Comments for the Zone
Summary
AUTHOR:
USAF
RECIPIENT:
Johanna Hunter, EPA
DATE:
Richard Pease, NHDES
TYPE:
February 1993
SECOND REFERENCE:
Letter
LOCATION:
Zone 2
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (10.1) #66 001-012
LONG TITLE:
Response to Comments, Zone 2 SCS - EPA Comments
AUTHOR:
USAF
RECIPIENT:
EPA
DATE:
2 February 1993
TYPE:
Response to Comments
SECOND REFERENCE:
Zone 2
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (10.1) #67 001-009
LONG TITLE:
Response to Comments, Zone 2 SCS - NHDES Comment
AUTHOR:
USAF
RECIPIENT:
NHDES
DATE:
2 February 1993
TYPE:
Response to Comments
SECOND REFERENCE:
Zone 2
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (10.1) #68 001-004
LONG TITLE:
Stage 3B IRP Site 34 Groundwater Treatment Plant
AUTHOR:
NHDES
RECIPIENT:
Art Ditto, AFBDA
DATE:
25 January 1993
TYPE:
Comments
SECOND REFERENCE:
Site 34
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (10.1) #69 001-018
LONG TITLE:
Response to EPA Comments on Site 8 Draft FS
AUTHOR:
USAF
RECIPIENT:
EPA
DATE:
27 January 1993
TYPE:
Response to Comments
SECOND REFERENCE:
Site 8
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (10.1) #70 001-021
LONG TITLE:
Response to NHDES Comments on Site 8 Draft FS
AUTHOR:
USAF
RECIPIENT:
NHDES
DATE:
28 January 1993
TYPE:
Response to Comments
SECOND REFERENCE:
Site 8
LOCATION:
ARF
#
MK01\RPT:00628026.004\zone5rod.apc
09/09/94
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (10.1) #71 001-006
LONG TITLE:
Response to NHDES Comments on Zone 5 FS
AUTHOR:
USAF
RECIPIENT:
NHDES
DATE:
07 January 1993
TYPE:
Response to Comments
SECOND REFERENCE:
Zone 5
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (10.1) #72 001-009
LONG TITLE:
Response to EPA Comments on Site 8 Draft FS
AUTHOR:
USAF
RECIPIENT:
EPA
DATE:
11 January 1993
TYPE:
Response to Comments
SECOND REFERENCE:
Site 8
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (10.1) #73 001-001
LONG TITLE:
Sierra Club Comments on Cleanup of Site 5 at Pea
AUTHOR:
Scott Drummey, Sierra Club
RECIPIENT:
USAF
DATE:
15 February 1993
TYPE:
Comments
SECOND REFERENCE:
Landfills
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (10.1) #74 001-002
LONG TITLE:
Proposed Plan for IPR Site 5, Landfill 5, Source
AUTHOR:
Seacoast Citizens Overseeing Pease Environment (
RECIPIENT:
USAF
DATE:
22 January 1993
TYPE:
Comments
SECOND REFERENCE:
Landfills
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (10.1) #75 001-002
LONG TITLE:
DES Review of Site 8 Draft Final Feasibility Stu
Force's Response to Comments to DES Review
Comments to Site 8 Draft Feasibility Study
AUTHOR:
NHDES
RECIPIENT:
Art Ditto, AFBDA
DATE:
01 March 1993
TYPE:
Comments
SECOND REFERENCE:
Site 8
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (10.1) #76 001-009
LONG TITLE:
EPA Review of Air Force Installation Restoration
Investigation Report, Zone 5, Pease Air Force
Base - February 1993
AUTHOR:
EPA
RECIPIENT:
Art Ditto, AFBDA
DATE:
26 March 1993
TYPE:
Comments
SECOND REFERENCE:
Zone 5
LOCATION:
ARF
#
MK01\RPT:00628026.004\zone5rod.apc
09/09/94
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (10.1) #77 001-011
LONG TITLE:
IRP Stage 4 Zone 5 Remedial Investigation, Febru
AUTHOR:
NHDES
RECIPIENT:
Art Ditto, AFBDA
DATE:
26 March 1993
TYPE:
Comments
SECOND REFERENCE:
Zone 5
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (10.1) #78 001-002
LONG TITLE:
Comments on Proposed Plan for IRP Sites 32/36 an
AUTHOR:
Robert J. Mack, Director
Office of Real Property Management
U.S. Department of State
RECIPIENT:
Art Ditto, AFBDA
DATE:
29 March 1993
TYPE:
Letter with attachment
SECOND REFERENCE:
Sites 32/36 and 34
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (10.1) #79 001-003
LONG TITLE:
Proposed Plans for IRP Sites 32/36 and 34, March
AUTHOR:
George C. Jones, Executive Director PDA
RECIPIENT:
Art Ditto, AFBDA
DATE:
15 April 1993
TYPE:
Comments
SECOND REFERENCE:
Sites 32/36 and 34
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (10.1) #80 001-003
LONG TITLE:
SCOPE Comments on Proposed Plans for Sites 32/36
AUTHOR:
Brandley M. Lown, Chairman, SCOPE
RECIPIENT:
Art Ditto, AFBDA
DATE:
26 April 1993
TYPE:
Comments
SECOND REFERENCE:
Sites 32/36 and 34
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (10.1) #81 001-005
LONG TITLE:
Response to EPA Comments on the Draft Zone 5 ISA
AUTHOR:
USAF
RECIPIENT:
EPA Region 1
DATE:
14 June 1993
TYPE:
Response to Comments
SECOND REFERENCE:
Zone 5
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (10.1) #82 001-025
LONG TITLE:
Response to NHDES Comments on the Draft Zone 5 I
AUTHOR:
USAF
RECIPIENT:
NHDES
DATE:
14 June 1993
TYPE:
Response to Comments
SECOND REFERENCE:
Zone 5
LOCATION:
ARF
MK01\RPT:00628026.004\zone5rod.apc
09/09/94
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (10.1) #83 001-023
LONG TITLE:
Review of the Air Force Installation Restoration
Screening of Alternatives Report, Pease AFB
AUTHOR:
USEPA, Region 1
RECIPIENT:
USAF
DATE:
27 August 1993
TYPE:
Comments
SECOND REFERENCE:
PEA (10.10); Zone 1
LOCATION:
ARF (Section 10.1 Binder)
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (10.1) #84 001-018
LONG TITLE:
Response to EPA Comments on the Zone 1 Draft Rem
AUTHOR:
USAF
RECIPIENT:
EPA
DATE:
15 October 1993
TYPE:
Response to Comments
SECOND REFERENCE:
Zone 1
LOCATION:
ARF (Section 10.1 Binder)
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (10.1) #85 001-018
LONG TITLE:
Response to NHDES Comments on the Zone 1 Draft R
Report
AUTHOR:
USAF
RECIPIENT:
NHDES
DATE:
15 October 1993
TYPE:
Response to Comments
SECOND REFERENCE:
Zone 1; PEA (10.10)
LOCATION:
ARF (Section 10.1 Binder)
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (10.1) #86 001-015
LONG TITLE:
Response to the EPA Comments on the Zone 1 Draft
AUTHOR:
USAF
RECIPIENT:
EPA
DATE:
29 November 1993
TYPE:
Response to Comments
SECOND REFERENCE:
Zone 1
LOCATION:
ARF (Section 10.1 Binder)
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (10.1) #87 001-018
LONG TITLE:
Response to NHDES Comments on the Zone 1 Draft F
AUTHOR:
USAF
RECIPIENT:
NHDES
DATE:
30 November 1993
TYPE:
Response to Comments
SECOND REFERENCE:
Zone 1
LOCATION:
ARF (Section 10.1 Binder)
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (10.1) #88 001-007
LONG TITLE:
Review of the Air Force Installation Restoration
Investigation Report, Zone 2, Pease AFB
AUTHOR:
Michael Daly, EPA Region 1
RECIPIENT:
Arthur Ditto, USAF, Pease AFB
DATE:
9 July 1993
TYPE:
Comments
SECOND REFERENCE:
Zone 2; PEA (10.10)
MK01\RPT:00628026.004\zone5rod.apc
09/09/94
LOCATION:
ARF (Section 10.1 Binder)
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (10.1) #89 001-008
LONG TITLE:
Response to EPA Comments on the Draft Zone 2 RI
AUTHOR:
USAF
RECIPIENT:
EPA
DATE:
30 November 1993
TYPE:
Response to Comments
SECOND REFERENCE:
Zone 2
LOCATION:
ARF (Section 10.1 Binder)
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (10.1) #90 001-027
LONG TITLE:
Response to NHDES Comments on the Draft Zone 2 R
AUTHOR:
USAF
RECIPIENT:
NHDES
DATE:
30 November 1993
TYPE:
Response to Comments
SECOND REFERENCE:
Zone 2
LOCATION:
ARF (Section 10.1 Binder)
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (10.1) #91 001-004
LONG TITLE:
Response to EPA Comments on the Zone 2 ISA Repor
AUTHOR:
USAF
RECIPIENT:
EPA
DATE:
13 September 1993
TYPE:
Response to Comments
SECOND REFERENCE:
Zone 2
LOCATION:
ARF (Section 10.1 Binder)
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (10.1) #92 001-012
LONG TITLE:
Response to NHDES Comments on the Zone 2 ISA Rep
AUTHOR:
USAF
RECIPIENT:
NHDES
DATE:
13 September 1993
TYPE:
Response to Comments
SECOND REFERENCE:
Zone 2
LOCATION:
ARF (Section 10.1 Binder)
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (10.1) #93 001-006
LONG TITLE:
Response to EPA Comments on the Zone 2 Draft FS
AUTHOR:
USAF
RECIPIENT:
EPA
DATE:
2 December 1993
TYPE:
Response to Comments
SECOND REFERENCE:
Zone 2
LOCATION:
ARF (Section 10.1 Binder)
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
#
PEA (10.1) #94 001-019
Response to NHDES Comments on the Zone 2 Draft F
USAF
NHDES
2 December 1993
Response to Comments
MK01\RPT:00628026.004\zone5rod.apc
09/09/94
SECOND REFERENCE:
Zone 2
LOCATION:
ARF (Section 10.1 Binder)
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (10.1) #95 001-007
LONG TITLE:
Response to EPA Comments on the Zone 4 RI
AUTHOR:
USAF
RECIPIENT:
EPA
DATE:
13 September 1993
TYPE:
Response to Comments
SECOND REFERENCE:
Zone 4
LOCATION:
ARF (Section 10.1 Binder)
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (10.1) #96 001-015
LONG TITLE:
Response to NHDES Comments on the Draft Zone 4 R
AUTHOR:
USAF
RECIPIENT:
NHDES
DATE:
13 September 1993
TYPE:
Response to Comments
SECOND REFERENCE:
Zone 4
LOCATION:
ARF (Section 10.1 Binder)
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (10.1) #97 001-011
LONG TITLE:
Response to the EPA Comments on the Zone 4 Draft
AUTHOR:
USAF
RECIPIENT:
EPA
DATE:
3 November 1993
TYPE:
Response to Comments
SECOND REFERENCE:
Zone 4
LOCATION:
ARF (Section 10.1 Binder)
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (10.1) #98 001-008
LONG TITLE:
Response to the NHDES Comments on the Zone 4 Dra
AUTHOR:
USAF
RECIPIENT:
NHDES
DATE:
2 November 1993
TYPE:
Response to Comments
SECOND REFERENCE:
Zone 4
LOCATION:
ARF (Section 10.1 Binder)
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (10.1) #99 001-019
LONG TITLE:
Response to EPA Comments on the Draft Zone 5 RI
AUTHOR:
USAF
RECIPIENT:
EPA
DATE:
4 August 1993
TYPE:
Response to Comments
SECOND REFERENCE:
Zone 5
LOCATION:
ARF (Section 10.1 Binder)
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
#
PEA (10.1) #100 001-020
Response to the NHDES Comments on the Draft Zone
USAF
NHDES
5 August 1993
Response to Comments
MK01\RPT:00628026.004\zone5rod.apc
09/09/94
SECOND REFERENCE:
Zone 5
LOCATION:
ARF (Section 10.1 Binder)
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (10.1) #101 001-006
LONG TITLE:
Response to Comments on the Draft Zone 5 RI Repo
AUTHOR:
USAF
RECIPIENT:
EPA
NHDES
DATE:
5 August 1993
TYPE:
Response to Comments
SECOND REFERENCE:
Zone 5
LOCATION:
ARF (Section 10.1 Binder)
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (10.1) #102 001-006
LONG TITLE:
Response to NHDES Comments on the Draft Zone 5 F
AUTHOR:
USAF
RECIPIENT:
NHDES
DATE:
10 October 1993 (Attached letter is dated August
TYPE:
Response to Comments
SECOND REFERENCE:
Zone 5
LOCATION:
ARF (Section 10.1 Binder)
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
#
PEA (10.1) #103 001-033
Response to EPA Comments on the Draft Zone 5 RI
USAF
EPA
28 September 1993
Response to Comments
SECOND REFERENCE:
Zone 3
LOCATION:
ARF (Section 10.1 Binder)
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (10.1) #104 001-024
LONG TITLE:
Response to NHDES Comments on the Draft Zone 3 R
AUTHOR:
USAF
RECIPIENT:
NHDES
DATE:
29 September 1993
TYPE:
Response to Comments
SECOND REFERENCE:
Zone 3
LOCATION:
ARF (Section 10.1 Binder)
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (10.1) #105 001-D.3
LONG TITLE:
Pease AFB Response to NHDES and EPA Comments on
Inspection Report
AUTHOR:
USAF
RECIPIENT:
EPA
NHDES
DATE:
30 November 1993
TYPE:
Response to Comments
SECOND REFERENCE:
Zone 6; Zone 7
LOCATION:
ARF (Section 10.1 Binder)
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (10.1) #106 001-013
LONG TITLE:
Response to EPA Comments on the Draft Zone 7 (OJ
AUTHOR:
USAF
RECIPIENT:
EPA
MK01\RPT:00628026.004\zone5rod.apc
09/09/94
DATE:
17 December 1993
TYPE:
Response to Comments
SECOND REFERENCE:
Zone 7
LOCATION:
ARF (Section 10.1 Binder)
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (10.1) #107 001-001
LONG TITLE:
Response to NHDES Comments on the 30% Submittal
for the Landfill 5 Final Closure System
AUTHOR:
USAF
RECIPIENT:
NHDES
DATE:
3 November 1993
TYPE:
Response to Comments
SECOND REFERENCE:
Landfill 5
LOCATION:
ARF (Section 10.1 Binder)
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (10.1) #108 001-004
LONG TITLE:
Response to EPA Comments on the 30% Submittal of
the Landfill 5 Final Closure System
AUTHOR:
USAF
RECIPIENT:
EPA
DATE:
3 November 1993
TYPE:
Response to Comments
SECOND REFERENCE:
Landfill 5
LOCATION:
ARF (Section 10.1 Binder)
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (10.1) #109 001-006
LONG TITLE:
Response to NHDES Comments on the 90% Submittal
for the Excavation/Relocation Plan for
Waste, Soil and Sediments; Landfills 2, 4, a
AUTHOR:
USAF
RECIPIENT:
NHDES
DATE:
3 November 1993
TYPE:
Response to Comments
SECOND REFERENCE:
Landfill 2; Landfill 4; Landfill 5
LOCATION:
ARF (Section 10.1 Binder)
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (10.1) #110 001-017
LONG TITLE:
Response to NHDES Comments on the Draft Final Si
AUTHOR:
USAF
RECIPIENT:
NHDES
DATE:
13 April 1993
TYPE:
Response to Comments
SECOND REFERENCE:
Site 8
LOCATION:
ARF (Section 10.1 Binder)
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (10.1) #111 001-010
LONG TITLE:
Response to EPA Comments on the Draft Final Site
AUTHOR:
USAF
RECIPIENT:
EPA
DATE:
13 April 1993
TYPE:
Response to Comments
SECOND REFERENCE:
Site 8
LOCATION:
ARF (Section 10.1 Binder)
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (10.1) #112 001-008
LONG TITLE:
Draft Response to EPA Comments on the McIntyre B
Ditch Draft RI/FS Report
AUTHOR:
USAF
MK01\RPT:00628026.004\zone5rod.apc
09/09/94
RECIPIENT:
EPA
DATE:
9 November 1993
TYPE:
Response to Comments
SECOND REFERENCE:
McIntyre Brook; Lower Newfields Ditch
LOCATION:
ARF (Section 10.1 Binder)
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (10.1) #113 001-014
LONG TITLE:
Draft Response to NHDES Comments on the McIntyre
Ditch Draft RI/FS Report
AUTHOR:
USAF
RECIPIENT:
NHDES
DATE:
8 November 1993
TYPE:
Response to Comments
SECOND REFERENCE:
McIntyre Brook; Lower Newfields Ditch
LOCATION:
ARF (Section 10.1 Binder)
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (10.1) #114 001-003
LONG TITLE:
Remedial Technology Peer Review, Pease Internati
National Base, New Hampshire, Peer Review
AUTHOR:
Fred Price, Mitre Corporation
RECIPIENT:
Major Charles Howell, AFCEE
DATE:
13 April 1993
TYPE:
Letter
SECOND REFERENCE:
Zone 5
LOCATION:
ARF (Section 10.1 Binder)
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (10.1) #115 001-002
LONG TITLE:
Peer Review of Initial Screening Alternatives, Z
Tradeport, NH
AUTHOR:
Fred Price, Mitre Corporation
RECIPIENT:
Major Charles Howell, AFCEE
DATE:
7 May 1993
TYPE:
Letter
SECOND REFERENCE:
Zone 4
LOCATION:
ARF (Section 10.1 Binder)
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (10.1) #116 001-003
LONG TITLE:
Review of U.S. Environmental Protection Agency C
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:
PEA (10.1) #117 001-003
LONG TITLE:
Peer Review of Initial Screening of Alternatives
AUTHOR:
Fred Price, Mitre Corporation
RECIPIENT:
Major Charles Howell, AFCEE
DATE:
2 July 1993
TYPE:
Letter
SECOND REFERENCE:
Zone 3
LOCATION:
ARF (Section 10.1 Binder)
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (10.1) #118 001-004
LONG TITLE:
Peer Review of Initial Screening of Alternatives
AUTHOR:
Fred Price, Mitre Corporation
MK01\RPT:00628026.004\zone5rod.apc
09/09/94
RECIPIENT:
Major Charles Howell, AFCEE
DATE:
16 July 1993
TYPE:
Letter
SECOND REFERENCE:
Zone 1
LOCATION:
ARF (Section 10.1 Binder)
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (10.1) #119 001-003
LONG TITLE:
Peer Review of Initial Screening of Alternatives
AUTHOR:
Fred Price, Mitre Corporation
RECIPIENT:
Major Charles Howell, AFCEE
DATE:
10 August 1993
TYPE:
Letter
SECOND REFERENCE:
Zone 2
LOCATION:
ARF (Section 10.1 Binder)
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (10.1) #120 001-005
LONG TITLE:
Review of the Air Force Installation Restoration
Screening of Alternatives Report, Pease AFB,
NH
AUTHOR:
EPA
RECIPIENT:
USAF
DATE:
27 August 1993
TYPE:
Letter with Attachment
SECOND REFERENCE:
Zone 1
LOCATION:
ARF (Section 10.1 Binder)
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (10.1) #121 001-012
LONG TITLE:
Pease AFB Zone 1 Draft Feasibility Study Review
AUTHOR:
NHDES
RECIPIENT:
USAF
DATE:
1 October 1993
TYPE:
Letter with Attachments
SECOND REFERENCE:
Zone 1
LOCATION:
ARF (Section 10.1 Binder)
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (10.1) #122 001-003
LONG TITLE:
General Review of September 1993 Draft Remedial
Study, Zone 7, Pease AFB, NH
AUTHOR:
Fred Price, MITRE Corporation
RECIPIENT:
Major Charles Howell, AFCEE
DATE:
21 October 1993
TYPE:
Letter
SECOND REFERENCE:
Zone 7
LOCATION:
ARF (Section 10.1 Binder)
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (10.1) #123 001-009
LONG TITLE:
Review of the Air Force Installation Restoration
Remedial Investigation/Feasibility Study Report,
Pease AFB, NH
AUTHOR:
EPA
RECIPIENT:
USAF
DATE:
4 November 1993
TYPE:
Letter with Attachment
SECOND REFERENCE:
Zone 7
LOCATION:
ARF (Section 10.1 Binder)
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (10.1) #124 001-008
MK01\RPT:00628026.004\zone5rod.apc
09/09/94
LONG TITLE:
Pease AFB Zone 7 Draft Remedial Investigatio
Comments
AUTHOR:
NHDES
RECIPIENT:
USAF
DATE:
5 November 1993
TYPE:
Letter
SECOND REFERENCE:
Zone 7
LOCATION:
ARF (Section 10.1 Binder)
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (10.1) #125 001-002
LONG TITLE:
Zone 4 Feasibility Study Report Comments and Res
AUTHOR:
Arthur Ditto, Pease AFB
RECIPIENT:
Michael Daly, EPA
DATE:
10 November 1993
TYPE:
Letter
SECOND REFERENCE:
Zone 4
LOCATION:
ARF (Section 10.1 Binder)
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (10.1) #126 001-002
LONG TITLE:
EPA Review of McIntyre Brook and Flagstone Brook
Work Plan
AUTHOR:
EPA
RECIPIENT:
USAF
DATE:
16 November 1993
TYPE:
Fax
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF (Section 10.1 Binder)
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (10.1) #127 001-003
LONG TITLE:
Response to EPA Comments Zone 3 Draft FS
AUTHOR:
USAF
RECIPIENT:
EPA
DATE:
22 November 1993
TYPE:
Response to Comments
SECOND REFERENCE:
Zone 3
LOCATION:
ARF (Section 10.1 Binder)
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (10.1) #128 001-012
LONG TITLE:
State Response to Comments Zone 3 Draft Feasibil
AUTHOR:
USAF
RECIPIENT:
NHDES
DATE:
22 November 1993
TYPE:
Response to Comments
SECOND REFERENCE:
Zone 3
LOCATION:
ARF (Section 10.1 Binder)
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (10.1) #129 001-010
LONG TITLE:
Pease AFB Zone 1 Draft Final Remedial Investigat
AUTHOR:
NHDES
RECIPIENT:
USAF
DATE:
29 November 1993
TYPE:
Comments
SECOND REFERENCE:
Zone 1
LOCATION:
ARF (Section 10.1 Binder)
#
MK01\RPT:00628026.004\zone5rod.apc
09/09/94
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (10.1) #130 001-003
LONG TITLE:
Zone 5 Draft Final Feasibility Study and the Zon
Review Comments
AUTHOR:
NHDES
RECIPIENT:
USAF
DATE:
29 November 1993
TYPE:
Comments
SECOND REFERENCE:
Zone 5
LOCATION:
ARF (Section 10.1 Binder)
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (10.1) #131 001-002
LONG TITLE:
Work Plan to Evaluate the Sediments of McIntyre
Review Comments
AUTHOR:
NHDES
RECIPIENT:
USAF
DATE:
29 November 1993
TYPE:
Comments
SECOND REFERENCE:
Zone 3
LOCATION:
ARF (Section 10.1 Binder)
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (10.1) #132 001-010
LONG TITLE:
Pease AFB Zone 2 Draft Final Remedial Investigat
AUTHOR:
NHDES
RECIPIENT:
USAF
DATE:
30 December 1993
TYPE:
Comments
SECOND REFERENCE:
Zone 2
LOCATION:
ARF (Section 10.1 Binder)
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (10.1) #133 001-004
LONG TITLE:
Zone 5 and Site 8 Draft Fact Sheets for Proposed
AUTHOR:
NHDES
RECIPIENT:
USAF
DATE:
30 December 1993
TYPE:
Comments
SECOND REFERENCE:
Zone 5; Site 8
LOCATION:
ARF (Section 10.1 Binder)
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (10.1) #134 001-003
LONG TITLE:
Pease AFB Zone 1 Feasibility Study Report Draft
AUTHOR:
NHDES
RECIPIENT:
USAF
DATE:
3 January 1994
TYPE:
Comments
SECOND REFERENCE:
Zone 1
LOCATION:
ARF (Section 10.1 Binder)
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (10.1 #135 001-004
LONG TITLE:
Zone 3 Draft Final Feasibility Study Report Revi
AUTHOR:
NHDES
RECIPIENT:
USAF
DATE:
3 January 1994
TYPE:
Comments
SECOND REFERENCE:
Zone 3
LOCATION:
ARF (Section 10.1 Binder)
#
MK01\RPT:00628026.004\zone5rod.apc
09/09/94
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (10.1) #136 001-010
LONG TITLE:
Pease AFB, Zone 1 Draft Final Remedial Investiga
AUTHOR:
NHDES
RECIPIENT:
USAF
DATE:
29 November 1993
TYPE:
Review Comments
SECOND REFERENCE:
Zone 1; PEA (3.6)
LOCATION:
ARF (Section 10.1 Binder)
#
MK01\RPT:00628026.004\zone5rod.apc
09/09/94
10.2
Community
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (10.2) #1 001-040
LONG TITLE:
"Installation Restoration Program Community Rela
AUTHOR:
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
RECIPIENT:
EPA, NHDES, USAF
DATE:
January 1991
TYPE:
Community Relations Plan
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF, IR
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (10.2) #2 001-080
LONG TITLE:
U.S. Air Force Installation Restoration Program
Pease AFB, NH Interim Final
AUTHOR:
Dynamac Corporation
230 Peachtree St, N.W., Ste. 500
Atlanta, GA 30303
RECIPIENT:
USAF
DATE:
July 1993
TYPE:
CRP
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF
#
MK01\RPT:00628026.004\zone5rod.apc
09/09/94
10.3
Public
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (10.3) #1 001-001
LONG TITLE:
Paid Advertisement of January 27, 1993 Public He
Landfill 5 Source Area
AUTHOR:
USAF
RECIPIENT:
Foster's Daily Democrat; Public
DATE:
23 January 1993
TYPE:
Public Notice
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF, IR
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (10.3) #2 001-001
LONG TITLE:
Paid Advertisement of January 27, 1993 Public He
Landfill 5 Source Area
AUTHOR:
USAF
RECIPIENT:
Portsmouth Herald; Public
DATE:
24 January 1993
TYPE:
Public Notice
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF, IR
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (10.3) #3 001-001
LONG TITLE:
Paid Advertisement in Portsmouth Herald, for Sit
Public Hearing and Comment Period.
AUTHOR:
USAF
RECIPIENT:
Portsmouth Herald; Public
DATE:
28 March 1993
TYPE:
Public Notice
SECOND REFERENCE:
Site 32/36; Site 34
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (10.3) #4 001-001
LONG TITLE:
Paid Advertisement in Foster's Daily Democrat fo
Plan Public Hearing and Comment Period
AUTHOR:
USAF
RECIPIENT:
Foster's Daily Democrat Public
DATE:
27 March 1993
TYPE:
Public Notice
SECOND REFERENCE:
Site 32/36; Site 34
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (10.3) #5 001-001
LONG TITLE:
Paid Advertisement in Foster's Daily Democrat fo
Plan Public Comment Period and Public
Hearing
AUTHOR:
USAF
RECIPIENT:
Foster's Daily Democrat, Public
DATE:
31 July 1993
TYPE:
Public Notice
SECOND REFERENCE:
LF-2, LF-4, LF-5
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (10.3) #6 001-001
LONG TITLE:
Paid Advertisement in Portsmouth Herald for Land
Public Comment Period and Public
Hearing
AUTHOR:
USAF
RECIPIENT:
Portsmouth Herald, Public
DATE:
1 August 1993
MK01\RPT:00628026.004\zone5rod.apc
09/09/94
TYPE:
Public Notice
SECOND REFERENCE:
LF-2, LF-4, LF-5
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (10.3) #7 001-001
LONG TITLE:
Paid Advertisement in Portsmouth Herald for Zone
Public Comment Period and Public Hearing
AUTHOR:
USAF
RECIPIENT:
Portsmouth Herald, Public
DATE:
6 February 1994
TYPE:
Public Notice
SECOND REFERENCE:
Zone 5; Site 8
LOCATION:
ARF (Section 10.3 Binder)
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (10.3) #8 001-001
LONG TITLE:
Paid Advertisement in Foster's Daily Democrat fo
Comment Period and Public Hearing
AUTHOR:
USAF
RECIPIENT:
Foster's Daily Democrat; Public
DATE:
5 February 1994
TYPE:
Public Notice
SECOND REFERENCE:
Zone 5; Site 8
LOCATION:
ARF (Section 10.3 Binder)
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (10.3) #9 001-001
LONG TITLE:
Paid Advertisement in Foster's Daily Democrat fo
Comment Period and Public Hearing
AUTHOR:
USAF
RECIPIENT:
Foster's Daily Democrat; Public
DATE:
26 February 1994
TYPE:
Public Notice
SECOND REFERENCE:
Zone 5; Site 8
LOCATION:
ARF (Section 10.3 Binder)
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (10.3) #10 001-001
LONG TITLE:
Paid Advertisement in the Portsmouth Herald for
Comment Period and Public Hearing
AUTHOR:
USAF
RECIPIENT:
Portsmouth Herald; Public
DATE:
27 February 1994
TYPE:
Public Notice
SECOND REFERENCE:
Zone 5; Site 8
LOCATION:
ARF (Section 10.3 Binder)
#
MK01\RPT:00628026.004\zone5rod.apc
09/09/94
10.4
Public Meetin
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (10.4) #1 001-052
LONG TITLE:
Pease Air Force Base, New Hampshire Official Tra
Proposed Plan for Landfill 5 Source Area
AUTHOR:
R & R Associates
P.O. Box 863
Exeter, NH 03833
RECIPIENT:
USAF
DATE:
27 January 1993
TYPE:
Transcript
SECOND REFERENCE:
Landfill 5
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (10.4) #2 001-7.4
LONG TITLE:
Public Hearing Summary of Pease Air Force Base P
Source Area Proposed Plan
AUTHOR:
Dynamac Corporation
230 Peachtree st., N.W.
Suite 500
Atlanta, Georgia 30303
RECIPIENT:
USAF
DATE:
27 January 1993
TYPE:
Hearing Summary
SECOND REFERENCE:
Landfill 5
LOCATION:
ARF, IR
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (10.4) #3 001-025
LONG TITLE:
Pease Air Force Base Public Workshop and Informa
Restoration Program
AUTHOR:
Dynamac Corporation
230 Peachtree St., N.W.
Suite 500
Atlanta, Georgia 30303
RECIPIENT:
USAF
DATE:
12 January 1993
TYPE:
Meeting Summary
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
IR
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (10.4) #4 001-038
LONG TITLE:
Pease AFB Official Transcript of Public Hearing
Sites 32/36 and 34
AUTHOR:
R&R Associates, Inc.
RECIPIENT:
USAF
DATE:
30 March 1993
TYPE:
Transcript
SECOND REFERENCE:
Sites 32/34 and 36
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (10.4) #5 001-7.4
LONG TITLE:
Summary of Pease AFB Public Hearing on the Propo
32/36 and 34
AUTHOR:
Dynamac Corporation
RECIPIENT:
USAF
DATE:
30 March 1993
TYPE:
Hearing Summary
SECOND REFERENCE:
Sites 32/34 and 36
LOCATION:
ARF
MK01\RPT:00628026.004\zone5rod.apc
09/09/94
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (10.4) #6 001-034
LONG TITLE:
Pease AFB Official Transcript of Public Hearing
Landfill 5
AUTHOR:
R&R Associates, Inc.
RECIPIENT:
USAF
DATE:
5 August 1993
TYPE:
Transcript
SECOND REFERENCE:
LF-5
LOCATION:
ARF (LF-5 Shelf)
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (10.4) #7 001-8.3
LONG TITLE:
Final Summary of Pease AFB Public Hearing on the
the Landfill 5 Source Area and the
Consolidation of Landfills 2 and 4 Within La
AUTHOR:
Dynamac Corporation
RECIPIENT:
USAF
DATE:
5 August 1993
TYPE:
Hearing Summary
SECOND REFERENCE:
LF-5
LOCATION:
ARF (LF-5 Shelf)
#
MK01\RPT:00628026.004\zone5rod.apc
09/09/94
10.5
Documentation of Other Pub
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (10.5) #1 001-007
LONG TITLE:
Meeting Minutes of Technical Review Committee
AUTHOR:
USAF
RECIPIENT:
See Distribution List
DATE:
30 July 1991
TYPE:
Meeting Minutes
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF (Section 10.5 Binder)
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (10.5) #2 001-007
LONG TITLE:
Meeting Minutes of Technical Review Committee
AUTHOR:
USAF
RECIPIENT:
See Distribution List
DATE:
27 August 1991
TYPE:
Meeting Minutes
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF (Section 10.5 Binder)
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (10.5) #3 001-010
LONG TITLE:
Meeting Minutes of Technical Review Committee
AUTHOR:
USAF
RECIPIENT:
See Distribution List
DATE:
01 October 1991
TYPE:
Meeting Minutes
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF (Section 10.5 Binder)
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (10.5) #4 001-003
LONG TITLE:
Meeting Minutes of Technical Review Committee
AUTHOR:
USAF
RECIPIENT:
See Distribution List
DATE:
29 October 1991
TYPE:
Meeting Minutes
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF (Section 10.5 Binder)
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (10.5) #5 001-013
LONG TITLE:
Meeting Minutes of Technical Review Committee
AUTHOR:
USAF
RECIPIENT:
See Distribution List
DATE:
26 November 1991
TYPE:
Meeting Minutes
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF (Section 10.5 Binder)
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (10.5) #6 001-005
LONG TITLE:
Meeting Minutes of Technical Review Committee
AUTHOR:
USAF
RECIPIENT:
See Distribution List
DATE:
07 January 1992
TYPE:
Meeting Minutes
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
MK01\RPT:00628026.004\zone5rod.apc
09/09/94
LOCATION:
ARF (Section 10.5 Binder)
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (10.5) #7 001-003
LONG TITLE:
Meeting Minutes of Technical Review Committee
AUTHOR:
USAF
RECIPIENT:
See Distribution List
DATE:
31 March 1992
TYPE:
Meeting Minutes
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF (Section 10.5 Binder)
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (10.5) #8 001-002
LONG TITLE:
Meeting Minutes of Technical Review Committee
AUTHOR:
USAF
RECIPIENT:
See Distribution List
DATE:
28 April 1992
TYPE:
Meeting Minutes
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF (Section 10.5 Binder)
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (10.5) #9 001-003
LONG TITLE:
Meeting Minutes of Technical Review Committe
AUTHOR:
USAF
RECIPIENT:
See Distribution List
DATE:
20 May 1992
TYPE:
Meeting Minutes
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF (Section 10.5 Binder)
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
PEA (10.5) #10 001-005
Meeting Minutes of Technical Review Committee
USAF
See Distribution List
29 September 1992
Meeting Minutes
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF (Section 10.5 Binder)
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (10.5) #11 001-013
LONG TITLE:
Meeting Minutes of Technical Review Committee
AUTHOR:
USAF
RECIPIENT:
See Distribution List
DATE:
27 October 1992
TYPE:
Meeting Minutes
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF (Section 10.5 Binder)
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (10.5) #12 001-004
LONG TITLE:
Meeting Minutes of Technical Review Committee
AUTHOR:
USAF
RECIPIENT:
See Distribution List
DATE:
16 December 1992
TYPE:
Meeting Minutes
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
MK01\RPT:00628026.004\zone5rod.apc
09/09/94
LOCATION:
ARF (Section 10.5 Binder)
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (10.5) #13 001-004
LONG TITLE:
Meeting Minutes of the Technical Review Committe
AUTHOR:
USAF
RECIPIENT:
See Distribution List
DATE:
22 February 1990
TYPE:
Meeting Minutes
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF (Section 10.5 Binder)
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (10.5) #14 001-013
LONG TITLE:
Meeting Minutes of the Technical Review Committe
AUTHOR:
USAF
RECIPIENT:
See Distribution List
DATE:
30 March 1990
TYPE:
Meeting Minutes
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF (Section 10.5 Binder)
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (10.5) #15 001-004
LONG TITLE:
Meeting Minutes of the Technical Review Committe
AUTHOR:
USAF
RECIPIENT:
See Distribution List
DATE:
27 April 1990
TYPE:
Meeting Minutes
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF (Section 10.5 Binder)
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (10.5) #16 001-010
LONG TITLE:
Meeting Minutes of the Technical Review Committe
AUTHOR:
Department of the Air Force
RECIPIENT:
See Distribution List
DATE:
30 May 1990
TYPE:
Meeting Minutes
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF (Section 10.5 Binder)
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (10.5) #17 001-008
LONG TITLE:
Meeting Minutes of the Technical Review Committe
AUTHOR:
Department of the Air Force
RECIPIENT:
See Distribution List
DATE:
27 June 1990
TYPE:
Meeting Minutes
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF (Section 10.5 Binder)
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (10.5) 18 001-005
LONG TITLE:
Meeting Minutes of the Technical Review Committe
AUTHOR:
Department of the Air Force
RECIPIENT:
See Distribution List
DATE:
25 July 1990
TYPE:
Meeting Minutes
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
MK01\RPT:00628026.004\zone5rod.apc
09/09/94
LOCATION:
ARF (Section 10.5 Binder)
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (10.5) #19 001-005
LONG TITLE:
Meeting Minutes of the Technical Review Committe
AUTHOR:
Department of the Air Force
RECIPIENT:
See Distribution List
DATE:
29 August 1990
TYPE:
Meeting Minutes
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF (Section 10.5 Binder)
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (10.5) #20 001-012
LONG TITLE:
Meeting Minutes of the Technical Review Committe
AUTHOR:
Department of the Air Force
RECIPIENT:
See Distribution List
DATE:
26 September 1990
TYPE:
Meeting Minutes
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF (Section 10.5 Binder)
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (10.5) #21 001-008
LONG TITLE:
Meeting Minutes of the Technical Review Committe
AUTHOR:
Department of the Air Force
RECIPIENT:
See Distribution List
DATE:
31 October 1990
TYPE:
Meeting Minutes
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF (Section 10.5 Binder)
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (10.5) #22 001-004
LONG TITLE:
Meeting Minutes of the Technical Review Committe
AUTHOR:
Department of the Air Force
RECIPIENT:
See Distribution List
DATE:
29 November 1990
TYPE:
Meeting Minutes
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF (Section 10.5 Binder)
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (10.5) #23 001-003
LONG TITLE:
Meeting Minutes of the Technical Review Committe
AUTHOR:
Department of the Air Force
RECIPIENT:
See Distribution List
DATE:
31 January 1991
TYPE:
Meeting Minutes
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF (Section 10.5 Binder)
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (10.5) #24 001-003
LONG TITLE:
Meeting Minutes of the Technical Review Committe
AUTHOR:
Department of the Air Force
RECIPIENT:
See Distribution List
DATE:
27 March 1991
TYPE:
Meeting Minutes
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
MK01\RPT:00628026.004\zone5rod.apc
09/09/94
LOCATION:
ARF (Section 10.5 Binder)
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (10.5) #25 001-006
LONG TITLE:
Meeting Minutes of the Technical Review Committe
AUTHOR:
Department of the Air Force
RECIPIENT:
See Distribution List
DATE:
24 April 1991
TYPE:
Meeting Minutes
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF (Section 10.5 Binder)
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (10.5) #26 001-003
LONG TITLE:
Meeting Minutes of the Technical Review Committe
AUTHOR:
Department of the Air Force
RECIPIENT:
See Distribution List
DATE:
28 May 1991
TYPE:
Meeting Minutes
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF (Section 10.5 Binder)
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (10.5) #27 001-006
LONG TITLE:
Meeting Minutes of the Technical Review Committe
AUTHOR:
Department of the Air Force
RECIPIENT:
See Distribution List
DATE:
25 June 1991
TYPE:
Meeting Minutes
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF (Section 10.5 Binder)
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (10.5) #28 001-008
LONG TITLE:
Meeting Minutes of the Technical Review Committe
AUTHOR:
USAF
RECIPIENT:
See Distribution List
DATE:
31 August 1993
TYPE:
Meeting Minutes
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF (Section 10.5 Binder)
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (10.5) #29 001-011
LONG TITLE:
Technical Review Committee Meeting Minutes
AUTHOR:
USAF
RECIPIENT:
See Distribution List
DATE:
30 November 1993
TYPE:
Meeting Minutes
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF (Section 10.5 Binder)
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (10.5) #30 001-009
LONG TITLE:
Meeting Minutes of Technical Review Committee
AUTHOR:
USAF
RECIPIENT:
See Distribution List
DATE:
28 September 1993
TYPE:
Meeting Minutes
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
MK01\RPT:00628026.004\zone5rod.apc
09/09/94
LOCATION:
ARF (Section 10.5 Binder)
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (10.5) #31 001-010
LONG TITLE:
Technical Review Committee Meeting Minutes
AUTHOR:
USAF
RECIPIENT:
See Distribution List
DATE:
26 October 1993
TYPE:
Meeting Minutes
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF (Section 10.5 Binder)
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (10.5) #32 001-002
LONG TITLE:
Technical Review Committee Meeting Minutes
AUTHOR:
USAF
RECIPIENT:
See Distribution List
DATE:
18 January 1994
TYPE:
Meeting Minutes
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF (Section 10.5 Binder)
#
MK01\RPT:00628026.004\zone5rod.apc
09/09/94
10.6
Fact Sheets, Press Advisor
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (10.6) #1 001-003
LONG TITLE:
"News release regarding the investigation of 22
AUTHOR:
U.S. Air Force
RECIPIENT:
Media
DATE:
30 September 1987
TYPE:
New Release
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (10.6) #2 001-002
LONG TITLE:
"News release regarding presentation of the seco
AUTHOR:
U.S. Air Force
RECIPIENT:
Media
DATE:
21 September 1988
TYPE:
News Release
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (10.6) #3 001-003
LONG TITLE:
"News release regarding the underground water sa
AUTHOR:
U.S. Air Force
RECIPIENT:
Media
DATE:
29 November 1988
TYPE:
News Release
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (10.6) #4 001-002
LONG TITLE:
"News release regarding the release of the third
AUTHOR:
U.S. Air Force
RECIPIENT:
Media
DATE:
22 March 1989
TYPE:
News Release
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (10.6) #5 001-004
LONG TITLE:
"News release regarding off-base well water samp
AUTHOR:
U.S. Air Force
RECIPIENT:
Media
DATE:
7 June 1989
TYPE:
News Release
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (10.6) #6 001-002
LONG TITLE:
"News release regarding drum removalat Landfill
AUTHOR:
U.S. Air Force
RECIPIENT:
Media
DATE:
1989
TYPE:
News Release
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
MK01\RPT:00628026.004\zone5rod.apc
09/09/94
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (10.6) #7 001-003
LONG TITLE:
"Superfund Program Draft Interagency Agreement F
AUTHOR:
U.S. EPA, Region I
RECIPIENT:
See Mailing List
DATE:
December 1990
TYPE:
Fact Sheet
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (10.6) #8 001-008
LONG TITLE:
Pease Air Force Base Installation Restoratioon P
Investigation/Feasibility Study
AUTHOR:
USAF
RECIPIENT:
See Distribution List
DATE:
October 1991
TYPE:
Fact Sheet
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (10.6) #9 001-011
LONG TITLE:
Pease Air Force Base Installation Restoration Pr
Update
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
USAF
See Distribution List
DATE:
December 1992
TYPE:
Fact Sheet
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (10.6) #10 001-004
LONG TITLE:
Pease Air Force Base Installation Restoration Pr
Groundwater Treatment - Sites 8, 32/36 and 34
AUTHOR:
USAF
RECIPIENT:
See Distribution List
DATE:
January 1993
TYPE:
Fact Sheet
SECOND REFERENCE:
Sites 8, 34, 32/36
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (10.6) #11 001-005
LONG TITLE:
Pease Air Force Base Installation Restoration Pr
Storage Tank Program Overview
AUTHOR:
USAF
RECIPIENT:
See Distribution List
DATE:
January 1993
TYPE:
Fact Sheet
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (10.6) #12 001-008
LONG TITLE:
Pease Air Force Base Installation Restoration Pr
for Landfill 5 Source Area
AUTHOR:
USAF
RECIPIENT:
See Distribution List
DATE:
January 1993
TYPE:
Fact Sheet
SECOND REFERENCE:
LF-5
MK01\RPT:00628026.004\zone5rod.apc
09/09/94
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (10.6) #13 001-006
LONG TITLE:
Pease Air Force Base Installation Restoration Pr
Assessment/Site Investigation
AUTHOR:
USAF
RECIPIENT:
See Distribution List
DATE:
January 1993
TYPE:
Fact Sheet
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (10.6) #14 001-002
LONG TITLE:
News Release 93-01 - Comment Period Opens for Pr
Source Area
AUTHOR:
USAF
RECIPIENT:
All Local News Media - Radio, Press, TV
DATE:
15 January 1993
TYPE:
News Release
SECOND REFERENCE:
PEA (4.3)
LOCATION:
ARF, IR
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (10.6) #15 001-009
LONG TITLE:
Proposed Plan for IRP Site 34 (Bldg. 222) Fact S
AUTHOR:
USAF
RECIPIENT:
See Mailing List
DATE:
March 1993
TYPE:
Fact Sheet
SECOND REFERENCE:
Site 32/36; Site 34
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (10.6) #16 001-011
LONG TITLE:
Proposed Plan for IRP Site 32/36 (Bldgs. 113/119
AUTHOR:
USAF
RECIPIENT:
See Mailing List
DATE:
March 1993
TYPE:
Fact Sheet
SECOND REFERENCE:
Site 34; Site 32/36
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (10.6) #17 001-001
LONG TITLE:
News Release, Comment Period Opens for IRP Sites
AUTHOR:
USAF
RECIPIENT:
Media
DATE:
16 March 1993
TYPE:
News Release
SECOND REFERENCE:
Site 32/36; Site 34
LOCATION:
ARF (Section 10.6 Binder)
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (10.6) #18 001-008
LONG TITLE:
Revised Proposed Plan for Landfill 5 Source Area
Landfills 2 and 4 Within Landfill 5
AUTHOR:
USAF
RECIPIENT:
See Mailing List
DATE:
July 1993
TYPE:
Fact Sheet
SECOND REFERENCE:
LF-2, LF-4, LF-5
MK01\RPT:00628026.004\zone5rod.apc
09/09/94
LOCATION:
ARF (Section 10.6 Binder)
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (10.6) #19 001-002
LONG TITLE:
News Release, Final Plans Issued for Cleanup of
AUTHOR:
USAF
RECIPIENT:
Media
DATE:
27 September 1993
TYPE:
News Release
SECOND REFERENCE:
LF-5; Site 34
LOCATION:
ARF (Section 10.6 Binder)
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (10.6) #20 001-004
LONG TITLE:
Pease AFB Environmental Reporter Volume 1, Numbe
AUTHOR:
USAF
RECIPIENT:
See Mailing List
DATE:
January 1994
TYPE:
Newsletter
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF (Section 10.6 Binder)
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (10.6) #21 001-004
LONG TITLE:
Pease AFB Installation Restoration Program Updat
8
AUTHOR:
USAF
RECIPIENT:
See Mailing List
DATE:
January 1994
TYPE:
Fact Sheet
SECOND REFERENCE:
Site 8
LOCATION:
ARF (Section 10.6 Binder)
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (10.6) #22 001-004
LONG TITLE:
Pease AFB Installation Restoration Program Updat
Zone 5 (Site 9 and 11)
AUTHOR:
USAF
RECIPIENT:
See Mailing List
DATE:
January 1994
TYPE:
Fact Sheet
SECOND REFERENCE:
Zone 5
LOCATION:
ARF (Section 10.6 Binder)
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (10.6) #23 001-001
LONG TITLE:
News Release Regarding Postponement of Site 8/Zo
AUTHOR:
USAF
RECIPIENT:
Media
DATE:
9 February 1994
TYPE:
News Release
SECOND REFERENCE:
Site 8; Zone 5
LOCATION:
ARF (Section 10.6 Binder)
#
MK01\RPT:00628026.004\zone5rod.apc
09/09/94
10.7
* NOTE:
NO ENTRIES IN THIS SECTION AT THIS TIME
Responsiveness
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
#
MK01\RPT:00628026.004\zone5rod.apc
09/09/94
10.8
* NOTE:
Late Comment
NO ENTRIES IN THIS SECTION AT THIS TIME
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
#
MK01\RPT:00628026.004\zone5rod.apc
09/09/94
10.9
* NOTE:
Technical Review Com
NO ENTRIES IN THIS SECTION AT THIS TIME
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
#
MK01\RPT:00628026.004\zone5rod.apc
09/09/94
10.10
Correspondence
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (10.10) #1 001-001
LONG TITLE:
"Letter regarding concern about the hazardous wa
AUTHOR:
Gordon J. Humphrey, U.S. Senate
RECIPIENT:
James F. McGovern, Acting Secretary of the
DATE:
24 March 1989
TYPE:
Letter
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (10.10) #2 001-002
LONG TITLE:
"Letter regarding the migration of Air Force haz
AFB perimeter"
AUTHOR:
Town of Newington
RECIPIENT:
Robert Field, Environmental Cleanup Advisor
Portsmouth, NH
DATE:
11 May 1990
TYPE:
Letter
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (10.10) #3 001-008
LONG TITLE:
"Letter regarding groundwater sampling conducted
AUTHOR:
Department of the Air Force
RECIPIENT:
Will Gilbert, Newinton, NH
DATE:
6 June 1989
TYPE:
Letter
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (10.10) #4 001-001
LONG TITLE:
Submittal Letter for Draft Community Relations f
Reservation (MMR) on Cape Cod,
Massachusetts
AUTHOR:
Douglas S. Gutro, USEPA
RECIPIENT:
Karen Cowden,
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
DATE:
19 June 1990
TYPE:
Letter
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (10.10) #5 001-002
LONG TITLE:
Impact of Base Closure on Personnel Responsible
Restoration Program and Public Affairs
AUTHOR:
Merrill S. Hohman, USEPA
RECIPIENT:
Col. James R. Wilson
Pease AFB, NH
DATE:
27 August 1990
TYPE:
Letter
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (10.10) #6 001-001
LONG TITLE:
Impact of Base Closure on Personnel Responsible
Restoration Program and Public Affairs (Your Letter,
August 27, 1990)
AUTHOR:
USAF
RECIPIENT:
Merrill S. Hohman, USEPA
MK01\RPT:00628026.004\zone5rod.apc
09/09/94
DATE:
11 October 1990
TYPE:
Letter
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (10.10) #7 001-001
LONG TITLE:
Submittal of Primary Documents (Community Relati
AUTHOR:
USAF
RECIPIENT:
Jim Brown, USEPA
DATE:
24 October 1990
TYPE:
Letter
SECOND REFERENCE:
PEA (10.2)
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (10.10) #8 001-001
LONG TITLE:
Submittal of Primary Documents (Community Relati
AUTHOR:
USAF
RECIPIENT:
Richard Pease, NHDES
DATE:
24 October 1990
TYPE:
Letter
SECOND REFERENCE:
PEA (10.2)
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (10.10) #9 001-001
LONG TITLE:
Community Relations Plan Development Extension
AUTHOR:
USAF
RECIPIENT:
Johanna Hunter, USEPA
DATE:
17 January 1991
TYPE:
Letter
SECOND REFERENCE:
PEA (10.2)
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (10.10) #10 001-001
LONG TITLE:
Community Relations Plan Development Extension
AUTHOR:
USAF
RECIPIENT:
Richard Pease, NHDES
DATE:
17 January 1991
TYPE:
Letter
SECOND REFERENCE:
PEA (10.2)
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (10.10) #11 001-001
LONG TITLE:
Submittal of Draft Final Primary Documents
AUTHOR:
USAF
RECIPIENT:
Richard Pease, NHDES
DATE:
5 February 1991
TYPE:
Letter
SECOND REFERENCE:
PEA (3.1); PEA (3.3)
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (10.10) #12 001-001
LONG TITLE:
Submittal of Draft Final Primary Documents
AUTHOR:
USAF
RECIPIENT:
Johanna Hunter, USEPA
MK01\RPT:00628026.004\zone5rod.apc
09/09/94
DATE:
5 February 1991
TYPE:
Letter
SECOND REFERENCE:
PEA (3.1); PEA (3.3)
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (10.10) #13 001-001
LONG TITLE:
Community Relations Plan
AUTHOR:
USAF
RECIPIENT:
Johanna Hunter, USEPA
DATE:
12 April 1991
TYPE:
Letter
SECOND REFERENCE:
PEA (10.2)
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (10.10) #14 001-004
LONG TITLE:
Basewide ARARs Pease AFB, NH 03803, January 1993
Comments
AUTHOR:
Richard Pease, NHDES
RECIPIENT:
Arthur Ditto, Pease AFB
DATE:
1 April 1993
TYPE:
Letter
SECOND REFERENCE:
PEA (4.1)
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (10.10) #15 001-002
LONG TITLE:
Installation Restoration Program, Stage 4, No Fu
Document for IRP Site 11, February 1993 Review Comments
AUTHOR:
Richard Pease, NHDES
RECIPIENT:
Arthur Ditto, Pease AFB
DATE:
2 April 1993
TYPE:
Letter
SECOND REFERENCE:
Site 11
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (10.10) #16 001-005
LONG TITLE:
Zone 4 Draft Remedial Investigation Review Comme
AUTHOR:
Richard Pease, NHDES
RECIPIENT:
Arthur Ditto, Pease AFB
DATE:
16 April 1993
TYPE:
Letter
SECOND REFERENCE:
Zone 4
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (10.10) #17 001-010
LONG TITLE:
Zone 5 Initial Screening of Alternatives Report
Comments
AUTHOR:
Richard Pease NHDES
RECIPIENT:
Arthur Ditto, Pease AFB
DATE:
23 April 1993
TYPE:
Letter
SECOND REFERENCE:
Zone 5
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (10.10) #18 001-003
LONG TITLE:
Zone 4 Draft Remedial Investigation - Review Com
AUTHOR:
Richard Pease, NHDES
MK01\RPT:00628026.004\zone5rod.apc
09/09/94
RECIPIENT:
Arthur Ditto, Pease AFB
DATE:
29 April 1993
TYPE:
Letter
SECOND REFERENCE:
Zone 4
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (10.10) #19 001-005
LONG TITLE:
Draft Record of Decision for Lanfill 5 Source Ar
1993 - Review Comments
AUTHOR:
Richard Pease, NHDES
RECIPIENT:
Arthur Ditto, Pease AFB
DATE:
11 May 1993
TYPE:
Letter
SECOND REFERENCE:
LF-5
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (10.10) #20 001-002
LONG TITLE:
Pease AFB Review of Landfill 5 Draft Record of D
AUTHOR:
Johanna Hunter, EPA Region 1
RECIPIENT:
Arthur Ditto, Pease AFB
DATE:
13 May 1993
TYPE:
Faxed Letter
SECOND REFERENCE:
LF-5
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (10.10) #21 001-012
LONG TITLE:
Proposed Plan for IRP Site 8, Fire Department Tr
DRAFT - Review Comments
AUTHOR:
Richard Pease, NHDES
RECIPIENT:
Arthur Ditto, Pease AFB
DATE:
14 May 1993
TYPE:
Letter
SECOND REFERENCE:
Site 8
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (10.10) #22 001-011
LONG TITLE:
Pease AFB Zone 3 Remedial Investigation Report D
Comments
AUTHOR:
Richard Pease, NHDES
RECIPIENT:
Arthur Ditto, Pease AFB
DATE:
20 May 1993
TYPE:
Letter
SECOND REFERENCE:
Zone 3
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (10.10) #23 001-008
LONG TITLE:
McIntyre Brook/Lower Newfields Ditch RI/FS DRAFT
Comments
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
Richard Pease, NHDES
Arthur Ditto, Pease AFB
24 May 1993
Letter
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
ARF
Zone 3
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (10.10) #24 001-013
LONG TITLE:
Zone 4 Initial Screening of Alternatives Report,
Comments
AUTHOR:
Richard Pease, NHDES
MK01\RPT:00628026.004\zone5rod.apc
09/09/94
RECIPIENT:
Arthur Ditto, Pease AFB
DATE:
24 May 1993
TYPE:
Letter
SECOND REFERENCE:
Zone 4
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (10.10) #25 001-004
LONG TITLE:
Review of the Air Force Installation Restoration
Investigation Report, Zone 4, Pease AFB,
March 1993
AUTHOR:
Mike Daly, EPA Region 1
RECIPIENT:
Arthur Ditto, Pease AFB
DATE:
25 May 1993
TYPE:
Faxed Letter
SECOND REFERENCE:
Zone 4
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (10.10) #26 001-006
LONG TITLE:
Review of the Air Force Installation Restoration
Alternatives (ISA) Report, Zone 4, Pease
AFB, April 1993
AUTHOR:
Mike Daly, EPA Region 1
RECIPIENT:
Arthur Ditto, Pease AFB
DATE:
25 May 1993
TYPE:
Faxed Letter
SECOND REFERENCE:
Zone 4
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (10.10) #27 001-015
LONG TITLE:
Review of the Air Force Installation Restoration
Investigation Report, Zone 3, Pease AFB, April
1993
AUTHOR:
Mike Daly, EPA Region 1
RECIPIENT:
Arthur Ditto, Pease AFB
DATE:
26 May 1993
TYPE:
Faxed Letter
SECOND REFERENCE:
Zone 3
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (10.10) #28 001-004
LONG TITLE:
Review of the Air Force Installation Restoration
Brook/Lower Newfields Ditch Remedial
Investigation/Feasibility Study, April 1993
AUTHOR:
Mike Daly, EPA Region 1
RECIPIENT:
Arthur Ditto, Pease AFB
DATE:
26 May 1993
TYPE:
Faxed Letter
SECOND REFERENCE:
Zone 3
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (10.10) #29 001-001
LONG TITLE:
Proposed Plan Fact Sheet for Zone 4
AUTHOR:
Arthur Ditto, Pease AFB
RECIPIENT:
Michael Daly, EPA
Richard Pease, NHDES
DATE:
14 January 1994
TYPE:
Letter
SECOND REFERENCE:
Zone 4
LOCATION:
ARF (Section 10.10 Binder)
MK01\RPT:00628026.004\zone5rod.apc
09/09/94
11.1
EPA Headquarters
* NOTE: Guidance documents listed as bibliographic sources for a
Administrative Record are not listed
separately in this index.
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (11.1) #1 001-003
LONG TITLE:
Risk Assessment Issue for Carcinogenicity Charac
Trichloroethylene (CASRN 79-01-6),
Tetrachloroethylene (CASRN 127-18-4), and St
AUTHOR:
USEPA
RECIPIENT:
USAF
DATE:
14 July 1992
TYPE:
Guidance
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (11.1) #2 001-G.2
LONG TITLE:
Draft Guidance on Preparing Superfund Decision D
Plan and Record of Decision
AUTHOR:
Office of Emergency & Remedial Response, EPA, Wa
RECIPIENT:
USAF
DATE:
March 1988
TYPE:
Guidance
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
Art's Office
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (11.1) #3 001-B.9
LONG TITLE:
The RPM Primer: An Introductory Guide to the Ro
Superfund Remedial Project Manager
AUTHOR:
Office of Emergency and Remedial Response, EPA,
RECIPIENT:
USAF
DATE:
September 1987
TYPE:
Guidance
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
Art's Office
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (11.1) #4 001-11.1
LONG TITLE:
CERCLA Site Discrepancies to POTWs Guidance Manu
AUTHOR:
Office of Emergency and Remedial Response, EPA,
RECIPIENT:
USAF
DATE:
August 1990
TYPE:
Guidance
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
Art's Office
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (11.1) #5 001-041
LONG TITLE:
Framework for Ecological Risk Assessment
AUTHOR:
EPA
RECIPIENT:
USAF
DATE:
February 1992
TYPE:
Guidance
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
Art's Office
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (11.1) #6 001-E.1
LONG TITLE:
Preliminary Assessment Guidance Fiscal Year 1988
MK01\RPT:00628026.004\zone5rod.apc
09/09/94
AUTHOR:
Office of Emergency and Remedial Response, E
RECIPIENT:
USAF
DATE:
January 1988
TYPE:
Guidance
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
Art's Office
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (11.1) #7 001-G.1
LONG TITLE:
Community Relations in Superfund: A Handbook (I
AUTHOR:
Office of Emergency and Remedial Response, EPA,
RECIPIENT:
USAF
DATE:
1988
TYPE:
Guidance
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
Art's Office
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (11.1) #8 001-H.6
LONG TITLE:
Summary Report on Issues in Ecological Risk Asse
AUTHOR:
EPA
RECIPIENT:
USAF
DATE:
February 1991
TYPE:
Guidance
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
Art's Office
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (11.1) #9 001-127
LONG TITLE:
Technology Screening Guide for Treatment of CERC
AUTHOR:
EPA
RECIPIENT:
USAF
DATE:
September 1988
TYPE:
Guidance
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
Art's Office
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (11.1) #10 001-F.19
LONG TITLE:
Guidance for Conducting Remedial Investigations
CERCLA - Interim Final
AUTHOR:
Office of Emergency and Remedial Response, EPA,
RECIPIENT:
USAF
DATE:
October 1988
TYPE:
Guidance
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
Art's Office
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (11.1) #11 001-103
LONG TITLE:
Final Guidance on Administrative Records for Sel
Actions
AUTHOR:
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, EP
DC
RECIPIENT:
USAF
DATE:
1190/91
TYPE:
Guidance
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
Art's Office
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (11.1) #12 001-B.2
MK01\RPT:00628026.004\zone5rod.apc
09/09/94
LONG TITLE:
Implementing EPA's Groundwater Protection St
Comprehensive State Groundwater Protection
Program Guidance
AUTHOR:
EPA
RECIPIENT:
USAF
DATE:
1992
TYPE:
Guidance
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
Art's Office
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (11.1) #13 001-021
LONG TITLE:
A Handbook for State Groundwater Managers
AUTHOR:
Office of Water, EPA, Washington, DC
RECIPIENT:
USAF
DATE:
May 1992
TYPE:
Guidance
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
Art's Office
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (11.1) #14 001-3.40
LONG TITLE:
Conducting Remedial Investigations/Feasibility S
Landfill Sites
AUTHOR:
Office of Emergency and Remedial Response, EPA,
RECIPIENT:
USAF
DATE:
February 1991
TYPE:
Guidance
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
Art's Office
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (11.1) #15 001-F.2
LONG TITLE:
Guidance on Preparing Superfund Decision Documen
The Record of Decision, and Explanation
of Significant Differences, The Record of De
AUTHOR:
Office of Emergency and Remedial Response, EPA,
RECIPIENT:
USAF
DATE:
July 1989
TYPE:
Guidance
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
Art's Office
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (11.1) #16 001-B.12
LONG TITLE:
Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund Volume I:
Manual (Part A) Interim Final
AUTHOR:
Office of Emergency and Remedial Response, EPA,
RECIPIENT:
USAF
DATE:
December 1989
TYPE:
Guidance
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
Art's Office
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (11.1) #17 001-057
LONG TITLE:
Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund Volume II
Evaluation Manual Interim Final
AUTHOR:
Office of Emergency and Remedial Response, EPA,
RECIPIENT:
USAF
DATE:
March 1989
TYPE:
Guidance
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
Art's Office
#
MK01\RPT:00628026.004\zone5rod.apc
09/09/94
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (11.1) #18 Deleted
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (11.1) #19 001-B.2
LONG TITLE:
Superfund Removal Procedures Action Memorandum G
AUTHOR:
EPA
RECIPIENT:
USAF
DATE:
December 1990
TYPE:
Guidance
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
Art's Office
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (11.1) #20 001-G
LONG TITLE:
RCRA Orientation Manual
AUTHOR:
EPA
RECIPIENT:
USAF
DATE:
1990
TYPE:
Guidance
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
Art's Office
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (11.1) #21 001-295
LONG TITLE:
The Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation P
Profiles
AUTHOR:
EPA
RECIPIENT:
USAF
DATE:
November 1991
TYPE:
Guidance
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
Art's Office
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (11.1) #22 001-017
LONG TITLE:
Accessing Federal Data Bases for Contaminated Si
AUTHOR:
EPA
RECIPIENT:
USAF
DATE:
May 1991
TYPE:
Guidance
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
Art's Office
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (11.1) #23 001-023
LONG TITLE:
Bibliography of Federal Reports and Publications
Innovative Treatment Technologies for
Corrective Action and Site Remediation
AUTHOR:
EPA
RECIPIENT:
USAF
DATE:
May 1991
TYPE:
Guidance
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
Art's Office
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (11.1) #24 001-111
LONG TITLE:
Synopses of Federal Demonstrations of Innovative
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
EPA
Technologies
USAF
May 1991
MK01\RPT:00628026.004\zone5rod.apc
09/09/94
TYPE:
Guidance
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
Art's Office
#
MK01\RPT:00628026.004\zone5rod.apc
09/09/94
11.2
EPA Regional
* NOTE: Guidance documents listed as bibliographic sources for a
Administrative Record are not listed
separately in this index.
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (11.2) #1 001-C.1
LONG TITLE:
Land Disposal Restrictions Summary of Requiremen
AUTHOR:
EPA, Region 1
RECIPIENT:
USAF
DATE:
August 1990
TYPE:
Guidance
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
Art's Office
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (11.2) #2 001-107
LONG TITLE:
Supplemental Risk Assessment Guidance for the Su
AUTHOR:
EPA, Region 1
RECIPIENT:
USAF
DATE:
June 1989
TYPE:
Guidance
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
Art's Office
#
MK01\RPT:00628026.004\zone5rod.apc
09/09/94
11.3
State Guidance
* NOTE: Guidance documents listed as bibliographic sources for a
Administrative Record are not listed
separately in this index.
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (11.3) #1 001-001
LONG TITLE:
ENC-WS 410 Groundwater Protection Rules
AUTHOR:
NHDES
RECIPIENT:
Art Ditto, AFBDA
DATE:
February 18, 1993
TYPE:
Letter
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (11.3) #2 001-B.8
LONG TITLE:
Interim Policy for the Management of Soils Conta
of Virgin Petroleum Products
AUTHOR:
NHDES
RECIPIENT:
USAF
DATE:
September 1991
TYPE:
Guidance
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
Art's Office
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (11.3) #3 001-048
LONG TITLE:
Groundwater Protection Rules
AUTHOR:
NHDES
RECIPIENT:
USAF
DATE:
February 1993
TYPE:
Guidance
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
Art's Office
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (11.3) #4 001-37.3
LONG TITLE:
New Hampshire Rules for the Control of Radiation
AUTHOR:
NHDES
RECIPIENT:
USAF
DATE:
April 1983
TYPE:
Guidance
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
Art's Office
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (11.3) #5 001-C.15
LONG TITLE:
Guidance Document for the Closure of Solid Waste
AUTHOR:
NHDES
RECIPIENT:
USAF
DATE:
May 1990
TYPE:
Guidance
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
Art's Office
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (11.3) #6 001-D.7
LONG TITLE:
Guidebook for Environmental Permits in New Hamps
AUTHOR:
NHDES
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
USAF
1992
MK01\RPT:00628026.004\zone5rod.apc
09/09/94
TYPE:
Guidance
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
Art's Office
#
MK01\RPT:00628026.004\zone5rod.apc
09/09/94
11.4
Air Force Guidance
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (11.4) #1 001-024
LONG TITLE:
"Ecological Risk Assessment Guidance for Pease A
AUTHOR:
Mitre Corporation, Civil Systems Division
RECIPIENT:
Air Force
DATE:
20 June 1990
TYPE:
Letter Report
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (11.4) #2 001-016
LONG TITLE:
"Implementation of Department of Defense (DOD) p
Policy No. 1"
AUTHOR:
Department of the Air Force
RECIPIENT:
See Distribution List
DATE:
11 December 1981
TYPE:
Policy/Guidance Document
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (11.4) #3 001-002
LONG TITLE:
"Implementation of DOD policy guidance on Instal
(IRP), Policy No. 1"
AUTHOR:
Department of the Air Force
RECIPIENT:
See Distribution List
DATE:
5 March 1982
TYPE:
Policy/Guidance Document
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (11.4) #4 001-003
LONG TITLE:
"Relationship of the IRP to RCRA enfocement acti
AUTHOR:
Department of the Air Force"
RECIPIENT:
See Distribution List
DATE:
26 December 1985
TYPE:
Policy Document
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (11.4) #5 001-002
LONG TITLE:
"Guidance for Air Force Installation Compliance
Compound Regulations"
AUTHOR:
Department of the Air Force
RECIPIENT:
See Distribution List
DATE:
8 October 1986
TYPE:
Guidance Document
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (11.4) #6 001-003
LONG TITLE:
"IRP Decision Documentation Policy"
AUTHOR:
Department of the Air Force
RECIPIENT:
See Distribution List
DATE:
25 May 1988
TYPE:
Policy Letter
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
MK01\RPT:00628026.004\zone5rod.apc
09/09/94
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (11.4) #7 001-003
LONG TITLE:
"RCRA Facility Assessment Guidance to Installati
AUTHOR:
Department of the Air Force
RECIPIENT:
See Distribution List
DATE:
3 August 1988
TYPE:
Guidance
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (11.4) #8 001-003
LONG TITLE:
"Guidance on base map construction and digitizat
AUTHOR:
Department of the Air Force
RECIPIENT:
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
DATE:
6 March 1989
TYPE:
Guidance Document
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (11.4) #9 001-I.3
LONG TITLE:
Handbook to Support the Installation Restoration
for Remedial Investigation/Feasibility
Studies Version 3.0
AUTHOR:
Air Force Occupational and Environmental Health
Technical Services Division
RECIPIENT:
Pease AFB
DATE:
May 1989
TYPE:
Handbook
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
Art's Office
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (11.4) #10 001-BI.3
LONG TITLE:
United States Air Force Environmental Restoratio
Making, Documenting and Evacuating No
Further Response Action Planned Decisions AUTHOR:
USAF
RECIPIENT:
Pease AFB
DATE:
February 1993
TYPE:
Guidance
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
Art's Office
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (11.4) #11 001-087
LONG TITLE:
Air Force Logistics Command Public Affairs Envir
AUTHOR:
USAF
RECIPIENT:
Pease AFB
DATE:
March 31, 1989
TYPE:
Guidance
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
Art's Office
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (11.4) #12 001-IX.A1.3
LONG TITLE:
Recommended Sampling Procedures
AUTHOR:
Air Force Occupational and Environmental Health
RECIPIENT:
Pease AFB
DATE:
March 1989
MK01\RPT:00628026.004\zone5rod.apc
09/09/94
TYPE:
Guidance
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
Art's Office
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (11.4) #13 001-J.2
LONG TITLE:
Report of the Defense Environmental Response Tas
AUTHOR:
Department of Defense
RECIPIENT:
Pease AFB
DATE:
October 1991
TYPE:
Guidance
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
Art's Office
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (11.4) #14 001-1.5
LONG TITLE:
Initiatives for Accelerating Cleanup at BRAC Ins
AUTHOR:
Department of Defense
RECIPIENT:
Pease AFB
DATE:
June 1992
TYPE:
Guidance
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
Art's Office
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (11.4) #15 - Deleted
MK01\RPT:00628026.004\zone5rod.apc
09/09/94
11.5
Technica
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (11.5) #1 001-022
LONG TITLE:
Trichloroethylene in the Groundwater Supply of P
Portsmouth, NH
AUTHOR:
U.S. Geological Survey
RECIPIENT:
USAF
DATE:
1982
TYPE:
Technical Source
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
Art's Office
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (11.5) #2 001-080
LONG TITLE:
Geology and Groundwater Resources of Southeaster
AUTHOR:
U.S. Geological Survey
RECIPIENT:
USAF
DATE:
1964
TYPE:
Technical Source
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
Art's Office
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (11.5) #3 001-010
LONG TITLE:
Preliminary Wetland Delineation and Evaluation R
Base, NH - Draft
AUTHOR:
The Smart Associates, Environmental Consultants,
RECIPIENT:
USAF
DATE:
April 1990
TYPE:
Technical Source
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
Art's Office
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (11.5) #4 001-222
LONG TITLE:
The Ecology of the Great Bay Estuary, New Hampsh
Estuarine Profile and Bibliography
AUTHOR:
Jackson Estuarine Laboratory, Durham, NH
RECIPIENT:
USAF
DATE:
October 1992
TYPE:
Technical Source
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
Art's Office
#
MK01\RPT:00628026.004\zone5rod.apc
09/09/94
11.6
Proposed Procedure
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (11.6) #1 001-005
LONG TITLE:
"Risk Assessment Data Needs and Sampling Procedu
AUTHOR:
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
RECIPIENT:
EPA, NHDES
DATE:
8 March 1991
TYPE:
Letter Report
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (11.6) #2 001-051
LONG TITLE:
"Analytical Methods Letter Report" - Supplementa
Sampling and Analysis Plan
AUTHOR:
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
RECIPIENT:
EPA, NHDES
DATE:
23 April 1991
TYPE:
Letter Report
SECOND REFERENCE:
PEA (3.1)
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (11.6) #3 001-055
LONG TITLE:
"Protocols for Generation of Baseline Risk Asses
- Revised"
AUTHOR:
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
RECIPIENT:
EPA, NHDES
DATE:
July 1991
TYPE:
Report
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (11.6) #4 001-002
LONG TITLE:
"Procedures for handling solids and liquids prod
and soil borings at Site 8 investigations"
AUTHOR:
Department of the Air Force
RECIPIENT:
NHDES
DATE:
21 August 1990
TYPE:
Procedures
SECOND REFERENCE:
Site 8
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (11.6) #5 001-002
LONG TITLE:
"Disposal of Drill Cuttings From Stage 2 and 3 I
AUTHOR:
Department of the Air Force
RECIPIENT:
NHDES
DATE:
14 August 1990
TYPE:
Procedures
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF
#
MK01\RPT:00628026.004\zone5rod.apc
09/09/94
11.7
Correspo
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (11.7) #1 001-006
LONG TITLE:
"Letter to EPA requesting review and concurrence
sampling procedure letter report"
AUTHOR:
Department of the Air Force
RECIPIENT:
State of New Hampshire
DATE:
20 March 1991
TYPE:
Letter
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (11.7) #2 001-002
LONG TITLE:
"Letter concerning use of drilling mud"
AUTHOR:
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
RECIPIENT:
Air Force
DATE:
26 December 1990
TYPE:
Letter
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (11.7) #3 001-002
LONG TITLE:
"Analytical Methods for Pease AFB"
AUTHOR:
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
RECIPIENT:
Air Force
DATE:
23 April 1991
TYPE:
Letter
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (11.7) #4 001-001
LONG TITLE:
Consolidated Background Values Letter Report
AUTHOR:
USAF
RECIPIENT:
Richard Pease, NHDES
Johanna Hunter, EPA
DATE:
March 9, 1993
TYPE:
Letter Report
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF
#
MK01\RPT:00628026.004\zone5rod.apc
09/09/94
12.1
* NOTE:
Privileged Document
NO ENTRIES IN THIS SECTION AT THIS TIME
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
#
MK01\RPT:00628026.004\zone5rod.apc
09/09/94
PEASE AIR FORCE BASE
Site Information:
Site Name:
Address:
PEASE AIR FORCE BASE
PORTSMOUTH/NEWINGTON, NH
EPA ID:
EPA Region:
NH7570024847
01
Site Alias Name(s):
US AIR FORCE PEASE AFB
13 IDENTIFIED WASTE AREAS
Record of Decision (ROD):
ROD Date:
Operable Unit:
ROD ID:
09/30/1994
03
EPA/ROD/R01-94/093
Media:
Soil, groundwater
Contaminant:
VOCs
Abstract:
Please note that the text in this document summarizes the Record of
Decision for the purposes of facilitating searching and retrieving key
text on the ROD. It is not the officially approved abstract drafted by
the EPA Regional offices. Once EPA Headquarters receives the
official abstract, this text will be replaced.
The 4,365-acre Pease Air Force Base, Sites 8, 9 and 11, site is
located in the Towns of Newington and Greenland and in the City of
Portsmouth, in Rockingham County, New Hampshire. Pickering
Brook is the primary surface water pathway that carries runoff away
from the site toward the Piscataqua River. In addition to Pickering
Brook, several wetlands area exist northeast of site 11. Peverly
Brook, an approximate 10-acre emergent wetlands, is located west of
Site 9. Groundwater occurs in both the bedrock and overlying
unconsolidated deposits at Pease AFB. The bedrock in the vicinity of
Pease AFB is composed of metamorphosed sedimentary, volcanic,
and intrusive igneous rocks of the Proterozoic to lower Ordovician
age Merrimac Group. This group includes the Kittery and Eliot
Formations, which are variably composed of quartzite, phyllite, and
metagraywacke. Land uses at Pease AFB since its closure on 31
March 1991 include industrial/commercial, military, and a wildlife
refuge. Land use in areas immediately surrounding the site varies.
Sites 9 and 11 are bounded by the runway and Taxiway D to the
south and southeast, and by undeveloped forested land to the
northeast. The site was used between 1956 and 1991 and is currently
inactive. There are approximately 3,700 dwellings within a 1-mile
radius of Pease AFB.
Site 9 (Construction Rubble Dump 1) served as a soil borrow area
and disposal site for construction debris, including concrete, asphalt,
wood, tree stumps, brush, and scrap metal. Phase I records indicate
that disposal of construction debris in the area began in 1958;
however, there is no evidence of this type of disposal in the 1960 or
1962 aerial photographs. The 1974 and 1987 aerial photographs
show a small circular excavation pit on the site. Currently, Site 9 is
not in use.
A taxiway and north ramp of the flightline form the southwestern and
southeastern boundaries of the Site 11 (Fuel Maintenance Squadron)
area of investigation. The site was chosen based on evidence of
stressed vegetation, organic vapors detected in the surface soil, and
disturbed areas. The Phase I study suggested that, prior to 1971,
solvents used to remove the protective cosmoline coating from new
aircraft parts may have been intermittently disposed of at the site.
Site 8 was active as a fire training area from 1961 to 1988. The
majority of the fire training exercises were performed in a large
circular pit area located in the southeastern portion of the site. Small
and large aircraft crash fires were simulated using approximately 200
and 500 to 1,000 gallons of JP-4 fuel, respectively.
Prior to 1971, mixed waste oils, solvents, and fuels were collected
from drums and bowers located across the base and transported to
Site 8 as the main method of disposal. The pit area was first
presaturated with water, and then the waste oils, solvents, and fuel
were poured on top of the water and onto mock aircraft. The mixture
was allowed to burn for 1 to 2 minutes and was extinguished using
an aqueous film-forming foam. During the mid 1970s, the practice of
mixing waste oils and solvents with fuel for training fires ceased, and
only JP-4 fuel was used.
In 1983, a study identified that Site 8 was a potential source for the
release of contaminants into the environment. From 1984 through
1992, investigations were conducted in three stages. Stage 1
investigation, which began in 1984, was designed to identify
potential impacts of previous fire training activities on soil and
groundwater. From October 1987 to May 1989, Stage 2 was
conducted which was designed to characterize the source areas and
to more accurately delineate the extent of groundwater
contamination. Stage 3 activities were performed from September
1989 to June 1993 and included two interim remedial measures and a
pilot-scale soil vapor extraction (SVE) treatability study. The results
of the SVE treatability study demonstrated the effectiveness of SVE
as a remedial technology for soil at Site 8.
Pease Air Force Base was listed on the NPL in 1990. In 1991, EPA
and New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services
(NHDES) signed a Federal Facility Agreement (FFA) establishing
the protocol and timetable for conducting the RI/FS process at Pease
AFB.
This ROD addresses Site 8 which discusses both source control
measures and management of migration of contaminated
groundwater to minimize the leaching of potential soil contaminants.
Remedy:
The selected remedy includes in situ soil vapor extraction (SVE)
treatment of source area soil contaminated above cleanup goals, and
treatment of extracted soil vapor for removal of volatile organic
compounds (VOCs); construction of an asphalt concrete cap to
minimize rainfall and snowmelt infiltration into the area of SVE
treatment; the cap will help to minimize the moisture content of the
soil to be treated by SVE; recovery and off-base disposal of
free-phase product floating on the water table in the source area;
design of a groundwater recovery system to capture dissolved-phase
contamination in overburden groundwater that exceeds cleanup goals
and to prevent continued migration of contaminated groundwater to
the bedrock groundwater; construction of an on-site groundwater
treatment plant (GWTP) for long-term treatment of recovered
groundwater; and environmental monitoring.
Text:
Full-text ROD document follows on next page.
EPA/ROD/R01-94/093
1994
EPA Superfund
Record of Decision:
PEASE AIR FORCE BASE
EPA ID: NH7570024847
OU 03
PORTSMOUTH/NEWINGTON, NH
09/30/1994
Text:
MK01\RPT:00628026.003\site8rod.fm
09/16/94
MK01\RPT:00628026.003\site8rod.fm
MK01\RPT:00628026.003\site8rod.fm
09/16/94
DECLARATION
SITE NAME AND LOCATION
Pease Air Force Base (Pease AFB), Site 8, New Hampshire
STATEMENT OF BASIS AND PURPOSE
This decision document presents a selected remedial action designed to p
ecological receptors at Site 8, Pease AFB, New Hampshire.
This document
in accordance with the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensatio
Liability Act (CERCLA) (42 USC Subsection 9601 et seq.), as amended by t
Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA) of 1986, and the National Cont
(NCP) (40 CFE Part 300).
Through this document, the Air Force plans to
threat to human health, welfare, or the environment posed by contaminati
decision is based on the Administrative Record for the site.
The Admini
the site is located at the Information Repository in Building 43 at Peas
Tradeport (formerly Pease AFB).
The Administrative Record Index as it a
is provided in Appendix D.
The State of New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services (NHDES)
with the selected remedy.
ASSESSMENT OF THE SITE
Actual or threatened releases of hazardous substances from Site 8, if no
implementing the response action selected in the Record of Decision (ROD
an imminent and substantial endangerment to public health, welfare, or t
MK01\RPT:00628026.003\site8rod.fm
DESCRIPTION OF THE SELECTED REMEDY
This action addresses the principal threat posed by Site 8, preventing e
public health, welfare, or the environment by implementation of this ROD
remediation of the soil and groundwater, and, consequently, minimizing t
potential of soil contaminants.
The selected remedy indudes in situ soil vapor extraction (SVE) treatmen
soil contaminated above cleanup goals.
volatile organic compounds (VOCs).
Extracted soil vapor will be tre
The remedy also will involve the con
asphaltic concrete cap to minimize rainfall and snowmelt infiltration in
treatment.
SVE.
The cap will help to minimize the moisture content of the so
One component of the alternative involves recovery and off-base di
phase product floating on the water table in the source area.
A groundw
system will be designed to capture dissolved-phase contamination in over
groundwater that exceeds cleanup goals and to prevent continued migratio
groundwater to the bedrock groundwater.
An on-site groundwater treatmen
will be constructed for long-term treatment of recovered groundwater.
STATUTORY DETERMINATION
The selected remedy is protective of human health and the environment, c
federal and state requirements that are legally applicable or relevant a
remedial action, and is cost effective.
The remedy uses permanent solut
treatment technologies to the maximum extent practicable.
The determina
the requirement of CERCLA 120(b)(i) that states "Remedial actions, in wh
that permanently and significantly reduces the volume, toxicity, or mobi
substances, pollutants, or contaminants is a principal element, are to b
remedial alternatives not involving such treatment."
A review will be c
Force, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), and NHDES no less
MK01\RPT:00628026.003\site8rod.fm
5 years after completion of remediation to ensure that the remedy provid
protection to human health and the environment.
The foregoing represents the selection of a remedial action by the Air F
Region I, with the concurrence of NHDES.
Concur and recommended for immediate implementation:
U.S. Air Force
By:_____________________________________________
Date:__________________________
Alan K. Olsen
Director, Air Force Base Conversion Agency
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
By:_____________________________________________
John P. Devillars
Regional Administrator
Date:____________
MK01\RPT:00628026.003\site8rod.fm
RECORD OF DECISION SUMMARY
I.
SITE NAME, LOCATION, AND DESCRIPTION
Pease Air Force Base (AFB), located in Portsmouth, New Hampshire, is inc
federal National Priorities List (NPL).
Based on Remedial Investigation
Studies (RI/FSs) conducted at a number of areas at Pease AFB, several ar
groundwater were identified that require remedial action to address sour
contamination to the environment.
This Record of Decision (ROD) address
contamination at one of the areas, referred to as Site 8 (Fire Departmen
(FDTA-2).
as Zone 5.
Site 8 is located in the northern portion of Pease AFB in the
Pease AFB is located in the Towns of Newington and Greenland and in the
Portsmouth, located in Rockingham County, New Hampshire.
As shown in Fi
AFB is located on a peninsula in southeastern New Hampshire.
The penins
on the west and southwest by Great Bay, on the northwest by Little Bay,
and northeast by the Piscataqua River.
southeast of the base.
The City of Portsmouth is locate
Pease AFB occupies 4,365 acres and is located ap
center of the peninsula.
At the beginning of World War II, the U.S. Navy used an airport located
Pease AFB.
The Air Force assumed control of the site in 1951, and const
existing facility was completed in 1956.
During its history, Pease AFB
of the 100th and 509th Bombardment Wings whose mission was to maintain a
force capable of long-range bombardment operations.
The New Hampshire A
Guard (NHANG) relocated the 157th Military Airlift Group from Grenier Fi
Manchester, New Hampshire, to Pease AFB in 1966.
The mission of the gro
in 1975, when it was designated as the 157th Air Refueling Group.
Over
quantities of fuels, oils, solvents, lubricants, and protective coatings
MK01\RPT:00628026.003\site8rod.txt
for routine maintenance operations, and release of contaminants into the
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 installat
by the Secretary of Defense's Commission on Base Realignment and Closure
closed as an active military reservation on 31 March 1991.
and uses some of the existing facilities.
NHANG remain
The remainder of the reservat
among the Department of the Interior, the State of New Hampshire's Pease
Authority (PDA), and the Air Force.
PDA now operates the runway and fli
as a commercial airport.
There are approximately 3,700 dwellings within a 1-mile radius of Pease
water usage surveys conducted in 1988 and 1992 and on available U.S. Geo
(USGS) and New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services (NHDES) in
it was determined that a number of these dwellings have wells and/or spr
their associated properties.
private wells.
only.
The Town of Newington, in particular, has
The majority of Portsmouth residences surveyed are servi
A compilation of area springs and wells for Pease AFB, based on i
available to date, is presented in the Pease AFB Off-Base Well Inventory
(G-599) contained in Appendix G of the Draft Final Zone 5 RI Report (G-6
Surface drainageways at Pease AFB flow radially away from the center of
Great Bay toward the west, Little Bay to the northwest and north, and th
to the east.
Little Bay flows into the Piscataqua River at the northern
Great Bay, Little Bay, and the Piscataqua River are all tidally influenc
these water bodies are subject to semidiurnal water level fluctuations.
Land use in the vicinity of Site 8 varies.
Site 8 is surrounded by the
Squadron Equipment Clearing Area (FMS, Site 11) to the southeast, Constr
Dump 1 (CRD-1, Site 9) to the northwest, the Town of Newington to the no
Taxiway D to the south (see Figure 1).
Undeveloped forested land is loc
MK01\RPT:00628026.003\site8rod.txt
<IMG SRC 0194093>
eastern Site 8 boundary, which includes the Newington Town Forest (which
National Register of Historic Places).
Pickering Brook, which flows off
northeasterly direction, also is located in the forested land.
Pease AFB officially closed on 31 March 1991.
industrial, commercial and military.
for the Zone 5 area of Pease AFB.
Land uses at the base sin
Figure 2a presents the general vic
The locations of off-base features in
8 also are shown in Figures 2a and 2b.
Off-base land use is primarily r
the Newington Town Forest is located immediately north of the base bound
Newington Town Forest, established in 1640 by early settlers, is believe
community forest in the United States.
This property, totaling 112 acre
owned in full from 1710 until 1919, when 5 acres were sold to the church
parsonage.
During this communal period, a portion of the property was c
and the remainder was held as a source of timber for construction, as a
financing public buildings, and as fuel for fires for less fortunate ind
90% of the original property was acquired by the Air Force in 1952.
Sub
were cleared for the runway and 69 acres remained in a natural state and
a forest area by the Air Force.
Figure 2b shows the location of the New
area in relation to the boundaries of Pease AFB.
The Newington Town Gar
on the western side of Nimble Hill Road and also is immediately north of
boundary.
Commercial and residential areas are located off base along S
approximately 1,000 feet northeast of the Pease AFB eastern boundary, an
which is located along the southeastern base boundary.
The largest comm
is a shopping mall located on the eastern side of Spaulding Turnpike.
O
land uses in the vicinity of Site 8 include a cemetery on Nimble Hill Ro
abandoned transfer station located on Little Bay Road.
Pickering Brook is the primary surface water pathway that carries runoff
8 area toward the Piscataqua River (see Figure 3).
located in an extensive, forested wetlands area.
The headwaters of Pi
Pickering Brook flows
approximately 1,500 feet downstream and then joins Flagstone Brook to fl
MK01\RPT:00628026.003\site8rod.txt
Piscataqua River.
Before Pickering Brook reaches Flagstone Brook, it jo
tributaries that flow from properties along Fox Point Road, which is nor
addition to Pickering Brook, several wetlands areas exist in the vicinit
wetlands northeast of Site 8, identified as Wetlands XII, are relatively
Merrimac Drive, at the headwaters of Pickering Brook, Wetlands XIII surr
Wetlands XIII is immediately adjacent to Flagstone Brook, and a portion
Flagstone Brook near its conjunction with Merrimac Drive.
It is not kno
8 is within a 100-year floodplain because floodplain location maps are n
Pease AFB.
Site 8 slopes toward the north from a high of approximately 117 feet abo
(ft MSL) in the southeast to approximately 50 ft MSL to the north-northe
feet of relief exists across the former burn areas.
southeastern part of the site area.
A bedrock outcrop e
A more complete description of the
the Draft Final Site 8 RI Report (G-577).
II.
A.
SITE HISTORY AND ENFORCEMENT ACTIVITIES
Site Use and Response History
Records indicate that Site 8 was active as a fire training area from 196
majority of the fire training exercises were performed in a large circul
the southeastern portion of the site.
Small and large aircraft crash fi
using approximately 200 and 500 to 1,000 gallons of JP-4 fuel, respectiv
Fire training exercises were conducted approximately two to four times p
Exercises were curtailed during the winter months because of adverse wea
Prior to 1971, mixed waste oils, solvents, and fuels were collected from
located across the base and transported to Site 8 as the main method of
area was first presaturated with water, and then the waste oils, solvent
poured on top of the water and onto mock aircraft.
The mixture was allo
1 to 2 minutes and was extinguished using an aqueous film-forming foam.
MK01\RPT:00628026.003\site8rod.txt
<IMG SRC 0194093A>
<IMG SRC 0194093B>
<IMG SRC 0194093C>
mid-1970s, the practice of mixing waste oils and solvents with fuel for
and only JP-4 fuel was used.
The exact date on which this change occurr
was most likely after the pit was refurbished in 1974.
Refurbishment of the large circular pit occurred from 1974 to 1975, and
installation of a sprinkler and drain system.
An underground sprinkler-
installed that allowed JP-4 to be sprayed onto the pit area through an u
An 8-inch-diameter drain pipe, approximately 200 feet long, was construc
the burn pit.
Excess fuels and fire training materials eventually disch
into a drainage ditch at the northern end of the site.
In 1983, an Installation Restoration Program (IRP) Phase I Problem Ident
Search was conducted at Pease AFB (G-84).
The study identified Site 8 a
source for the release of contaminants into the environment.
In respons
presurvey was conducted to obtain sufficient information for use in the
detailed study.
The presurvey was completed in 1984.
Based on the pres
conducted at Site 8 and 18 other IRP sites at Pease AFB in accordance wi
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (C
amended; the NCP; and all relevant EPA guidance, including EPA's guidanc
RI/FSs under CERCLA.
The investigations were conducted in three stages
through 1992.
The Stage 1 investigation at Site 8, which began in 1984, was designed t
impacts of previous fire training activities on soil and groundwater qua
results of those investigations were presented in the IRP Phase II - Con
Quantification, Stage 1 Final Report for Pease AFB (G-525), submitted in
Stage 2 field work at Site 8 was performed from October 1987 through May
primary purposes of the Stage 2 investigation were to characterize the s
more accurately delineate the extent of groundwater contamination.
The
investigations are described in detail in four Interim Technical Reports
MK01\RPT:00628026.003\site8rod.txt
4) (G-530; G-531; G-536; G-537) and in the IRP Stage 2 Draft Final Repor
Force Base (G-533).
Soil-gas and soil sampling and aerial photograph re
conclude that the former burn areas at Site 8 were potential source area
organic compounds (VOCs).
During fire training exercises, surface runof
discharged from the former burn areas to the drainage ditch located nort
burn areas.
Based on this information, the ditch was identified as a se
source.
Stage 3 activities at Site 8 were performed from September 1989 through
include the Site 8 RI/FS, two interim remedial measures (IRMs), and a pi
vapor extraction (SVE) treatability study.
Site 8 RI activities include
test pit investigations; surface and subsurface soil sampling; groundwat
sediment sampling; historic aerial photograph reviews; and hydrogeologic
provides a summary of RI activities performed to date at Site 8.
The Dr
and FS Reports were submitted in November 1992 and January 1993, respect
The first IRM was performed in February and March 1990 and involved the
approximately 262 tons of contaminated soil from a drainage ditch locate
northeastern corner of the site.
main burn pit.
This drainage ditch received surface r
The purpose of the soil removal IRM was to prevent poten
contaminants from the relatively highly contaminated drainage ditch soil
groundwater.
The excavated soil was disposed of off base at a licensed
facility.
The second IRM is a pilot groundwater remediation system, which has been
since August 1990.
The groundwater remediation IRM was designed to init
off-site dissolved VOC migration and to evaluate a pump-and-treat system
source control measure.
Data collected during the operation of the grou
IRM were used in the preparation of the FS Report, and will be used for
remedial action at the site.
MK01\RPT:00628026.003\site8rod.txt
The pilot groundwater remediation system consists of extraction wells, a
treatment plant (GWTP), and subsurface recharge trenches.
The system re
combined 11 gallons per minute (gpm) from two overburden extraction well
566), located at the northeastern end of the source area in the dissolve
plume.
Two other overburden wells (563 and 564), equipped with product
product directly to the oil/water (o/w) separator in the GWTP.
Unit processes in the GWTP indude o/w separation, metals precipitation,
clarification, bag filtration, air stripping, and liquid-phase carbon ad
from the GWTP consistently meets drinking water standards, the requireme
by NHDES and the Air Force for discharge through subsurface trenches.
A
explanation of the pilot groundwater remediation system is presented in
Groundwater Treatment Plant Report (G-552).
To date, the pilot groundwa
system has extracted and treated approximately 5.1 million gallons of co
groundwater, and has recovered approximately 1,100 gallons of free-phase
subsurface at Site 8.
After preparation of the FS, which proposed SVE and other treatment tech
remediate contaminated soils at Site 8, the Air Force performed a pilotstudy to evaluate the effectiveness of SVE as part of the remedy selecti
results of the SVE study demonstrate the effectiveness of SVE as a remed
soil at Site 8, and are detailed in the Site 8 Soil Vapor Extraction Tre
Report (G-680).
The results of the SVE study will be used to help estab
for a full-scale SVE system at Site 8.
B.
Enforcement History
In 1976, the Department of Defense (DOD) devised a comprehensive IRP to
control migration of environmental contamination that may have resulted
operations and disposal practices at DOD facilities.
In response to the
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) of 1976, and in anticipation of CER
MK01\RPT:006280260.003\site8rod.txt
issued a Defense Environmental Quality Program Policy Memorandum, dated
(DEQPPM 80-6), requiring identification of past hazardous waste disposal
agency installations.
The program was revised by DEQPPM 81-5 (11 Decemb
which reissued and amplified all previous directives and memoranda on th
Pease AFB was proposed to be added to the NPL in 1989 and was listed on
1990.
On 24 April 1991, the Air Force, U.S. Environmental Protection Ag
NHDES signed a Federal Facility Agreement (FFA) establishing the protoco
for conducting the RI/FS process at Pease AFB.
As part of this timetabl
in an effort to streamline activities, designed a basewide strategy plan
RI/FS.
This strategy plan grouped the various sites into seven zones or
based on geographic location, potential receptors, and potential future
inclusion of Pease AFB on the NPL, five sites (including Site 8) were on
RI/FS approach because of the potential threat they posed to human healt
environment.
The Air Force, EPA, and NHDES agreed that the RI/FS Report
five sites and the remedial actions would continue on an accelerated sch
remaining RI/FS Reports for each zone have been prepared as outlined in
III.
COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION
Throughout the site's recent history, there has been community concern a
EPA, NHDES, and the Air Force have kept the community and other interest
apprised of site activities through informational meetings, fact sheets,
public meetings.
In January 1991, the Air Force released a community relations plan that
to address community concerns and keep citizens informed and involved du
activities.
This plan was updated and released in summer 1993.
Numerous fact sheets have been released by the Air Force throughout the
AFB.
These fact sheets are intended to keep the public and other concer
MK01\RPT:00628026.003\site8rod.txt
apprised of developments and milestones in the Pease AFB IRP.
The fact
to date that concern Site 8 are summarized as follows:
Fact Sheet
Rel
Pease AFB Installation Restoration Program Update
Octo
Pease AFB Installation Restoration Program Update
Dece
Interim Groundwater Treatment ÄÄ Sites 8, 32/36, and 34
Janu
Remedial Investigation Results, Site 8
Janu
Site 8 Proposed Plan
Janu
In addition to the fact sheets, a number of public meetings have been he
remediation of Site 8.
On 14 November 1991, an IRP update public meetin
on 12 January 1993, an IRP public workshop and meeting were conducted to
public with information on the status of the IRP at Pease AFB.
On 1 Mar
Force conducted a public hearing and information session on the Site 8 P
during which oral comments on the Proposed Plan were received.
A transc
comments received during this meeting and the Air Force's response to co
included in the attached responsiveness summary (see Appendix C).
available in the Administrative Record file at Pease AFB.
A ful
In addition,
period for the Proposed Plan was conducted between 26 January and 10 Mar
Responses to written comments received during this period also are inclu
An Administrative Record containing documents and correspondence relatin
AFB IRP is maintained at Pease AFB in Building 43.
An index of the Admi
Record is maintained at EPA Region I in Boston, Massachusetts, and also
a condensed form, in Appendix D.
MK01\RPT:00628026.003\site8rod.txt
IV.
SCOPE AND ROLE OF OPERABLE UNIT OR RESPONSE ACTION
Zone 5 encompasses three sites, including the operable unit for Site 8.
are Sites 9 and 11.
The locations of these sites are shown in Figure 1.
Remediation at a Superfund site typically involves activities to remove
contaminant source materials in conjunction with activities that mitigat
contamination through groundwater and/or surface water pathways.
This R
both source control measures and management of migration of contaminated
at Site 8.
In general, the maximum extent of soil contamination is within 500 feet
areas horizontally and from the surface to approximately 30 feet below g
BGS) vertically.
The majority of soil contamination consists of aromati
(AHCs) (e.g., benzene and toluene) and total petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH
Groundwater in both the overburden and bedrock water-bearing zones has b
by past activities at Site 8.
In the overburden, two distinct plumes ar
a plume of free-phase product that is floating on the water table.
Obse
borings, piezometers, and monitor wells across the site indicate that th
may exist in multiple, isolated pockets within a narrow band extending f
areas northward to Merrimac Drive.
The second plume contains dissolved
(both aromatic and chlorinated VOCs) and extends from the former burn ar
boundary, the Newington Town property, and the properties owned by Harve
Coleman.
The locations of these properties are shown in Figure 2b.
In
phase product has been detected; however, a plume of dissolved VOC conta
been detected that originates at Merrimac Drive and extends northwest of
Newington Town property.
There are two surface water bodies in the vicinity of Site 8:
Brook.
Pickering
Pesticides, polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), and metals
MK01\RPT:00628026.003\site8rod.txt
in Pickering Brook.
Low levels of VOCs and PAHs also were detected in t
samples from Knights Brook.
The selected remedy for Site 8, as described in the Draft Final Site 8 P
(G-679), provides for the potential combination of two source area remed
evaluated in the FS and for management of contaminant migration in the o
bearing zone.
The primary source area remedial alternative consists of
source area soil (Alternative SC-3 in the Draft Final Site 8 FS Report)
secondary source area action is installation of downgradient groundwater
Also included in this alternative is recovery and off-base disposal of f
management of dissolved-phase contaminant migration in the overburden wa
zone, on-site treatment of recovered groundwater, discharge of treated g
subsurface recharge trenches, and institutional controls.
Specifically,
alternative includes the following elements:
In situ SVE of source area soil with contaminant concentratio
cleanup goals. This includes installing vapor extraction ven
vacuum on the vents to remove VOCs from the soil. The vapors
from the soil will be treated to remove VOCs.
Construction of an asphaltic concrete cap (blacktop pavement)
rainfall and snowmelt infiltration into the area of SVE treat
will aid in lowering the water table. The cap will be instal
existing clearing at the source area. The area will be limit
minimal disturbance of the Newington Town Forest.
Construction of groundwater/free-phase product recovery trenc
downgradient of the free-phase product plume as a contingency
trenches will be installed only in the unlikely event that fr
begins to migrate away from the source area because of operat
system. The free-phase product will be monitored with monito
phase product is detected in these monitor wells, the recover
be installed to intercept free-phase product.
Recovery and off-base disposal of free-phase product floating
table in the source area. This will be accomplished by insta
area of free-phase product and removing the product using sma
skimmer pumps. The recovered product will be disposed of off
licensed treatment/disposal facility.
MK01\RPT:00628026.003\site8rod.txt
09/1
Management of migration in the downgradient overburden waterzone. The groundwater recovery system will be designed to ca
overburden groundwater that contains dissolved-phase contamin
concentrations exceeding cleanup goals, and to prevent contin
of contaminated groundwater to the bedrock water-bearing zone
will manage the migration of both organic compounds and metal
concentrations exceeding the cleanup goals.
Monitoring the progress of the overburden groundwater recover
evaluate its effectiveness in controlling continued migration
into the bedrock. If it is determined that overburden ground
alone is not controlling migration of contaminants into the b
levels in the bedrock increase or remain the same over time),
extraction also will include active extraction from the bedro
zone in areas where contamination exists above cleanup goals.
Construction of a new GWTP for long-term treatment of recover
groundwater. Treated groundwater will be discharged to subsu
trenches.
Environmental monitoring during remedial operations, includin
personnel monitoring during construction to ensure that worke
maintained.
Long-term environmental monitoring, including groundwater, su
and sediment sampling and analysis. This process will be imp
through a groundwater management permit in accordance with NH
regulation Env-Ws 410.
After preparation of the FS, which proposed SVE and other treatment tech
remediate contaminated soils at Site 8, the Air Force performed a pilotstudy to evaluate the effectiveness of SVE as part of the remedy selecti
results of the SVE study demonstrate that SVE is an effective remedial t
remediating soil at Site 8.
The remedial action will address the following primary risks and princip
health and the environment posed by contamination at the site:
Risks posed to human receptors from ingestion of contaminated
that may present a health risk.
MK01\RPT:00628026.003\site8rod.txt
09/16/94
Risks posed to ecological receptors from direct contact with,
surface soil at the site. The results of the ecological risk
that contaminants in surface soil at the site posed risks to
species in excess of the EPA benchmark values; however, the v
the range of uncertainty for requiring remedial action.
The results of the risk assessment revealed that exposure to soil, surfa
sediment does not pose a risk (either carcinogenic or noncarcinogenic) t
or future human receptors at the site above the EPA threshold criteria.
ecological risk assessment revealed that contaminants in surface soil at
to representative species in excess of EPA benchmark values and are deta
VI.B of this report.
V.
SUMMARY OF SITE CHARACTERISTICS
Section 1 of the Draft Final Site 8 FS Report (G-611) contains an overvi
Final Site 8 RI Report (G-577).
Based on the results of the RI, a worki
was developed that incorporates all available applicable data (from Stag
concerning Site 8 and its vicinity, including geological, hydrological,
field measurements and visual observations.
The salient points of the m
summarized as follows:
The two former burn areas are the primary contaminant source
8. Soil contamination in these former burn areas primarily c
and AHCs. Dioxin was detected in seven surface soil samples.
A former secondary source area is the drainage ditch that rec
from the large former burn area via a drain pipe. Contaminat
removed from the drainage ditch.
Contamination in the soil in the area of the former burn pits
widespread both at the ground surface and at the water table.
Free-phase floating product detected in several overburden we
secondary contaminant source.
MK01\RPT:00628026.003\site8rod.txt
09/16/94
A dominant hydrologic feature of Site 8 is a north-northeast/
trending bedrock trough that controls the direction of overbu
groundwater flow.
Unsaturated overburden conditions exist on the western and so
limbs of the bedrock trough.
Overburden groundwater flows along the axis of the bedrock tr
discharges to Pickering Brook to the northeast and to the bed
western limb of the bedrock trough.
A regional bedrock recharge zone exists east of the former bu
Bedrock groundwater flows from approximately east to west acr
burn areas and discharges to the headwaters of Knights Brook.
The light, nonaqueous-phase liquid (LNAPL) free-phase product
along the axis of the bedrock trough and acts as a contaminan
Overburden and bedrock groundwater at Site 8 is contaminated
halogenated and aromatic VOCs, SVOCs, metals, and pesticides.
concentrations of several of these substances exceed federal
standards.
Overburden groundwater contamination primarily consists of ar
halogenated VOCs and is generally confined to the axis of the
Bedrock groundwater VOC contamination at concentrations above
criteria is confined to two areas.
A corridor of the low-permeability Glacial Till (GT) unit tha
or, in some areas, absent may have produced a conduit for con
overburden groundwater to migrate into bedrock.
Dissolved organic contaminants are migrating beyond the Site
off-site in groundwater and surface water.
These conceptual results of the RI are discussed in more detail in the s
follow.
A.
Geology
This subsection provides a brief summary of basewide and site-specific g
A more detailed discussion of the geology at Site 8 is presented in the
MK01\RPT:00628026.003\site8rod.txt
Report (G-577).
Site 8 and its vicinity are underlain by metasedimentar
bedrock that is overlain by up to approximately 70 feet of glacial depos
monitor well drilling logs indicate that the glacial deposits near Site
the Upper Sand (US) unit discontinuously underlain by the Marine Clay an
and/or the GT unit.
The US interfingers with the MCS where the MCS is p
bedrock and overburden units are described in Subsections 1.4.6.1 and 1.
Final Site 8 FS Report (G-611), respectively.
Bedrock Geology
The bedrock at Pease AFE consists of folded, faulted, and metamorphosed
igneous rocks of the Proterozoic to Lower Ordovician age Merrimack Group
Merrimack Group is Late Proterozoic to Lower Ordovician in age.
At Peas
Merrimack Group includes the Kittery and Eliot Formations (G-417), which
and sandstones that have been metamorphosed to phyllite and quartzite.
Group was deformed, metamorphosed, and intruded by the Exeter diorite an
and diabase dikes.
Continental rifting initiated in Early Triassic time
northeast-southwest trend of faults, joints, and diabase dike intrusion.
activity has occurred since Mesozoic time in the form of successive crus
rebound resulting from continental glaciation and deglaciation.
Description of Bedrock Units
The bedrock underlying Site 8 primarily consists of metamorphosed sedime
the Eliot Formation.
The Eliot Formation is described as a variably cal
to dark green quartz-chlorite-sericite phyllite interbedded with sericit
Interbedding is commonly observed on the centimeter scale.
throughout Site 8.
Diabase dike
The dikes are typically dark green to black, fine- t
massive pyroxene-plagioclase diabase with traces of pyrite and magnetite
more resistant to weathering than the host metasedimentary rocks and ten
localized bedrock topographic highs.
In addition, the diabase dikes enc
MK01\RPT:00628026.003\site8rod.txt
AFB contain more magnetite than the surrounding rocks or overburden and,
represent local electromagnetic anomalies.
Overburden Geology
The generalized stratigraphic sequence of the glacial deposits of coasta
ascending order):
till; stratified drift, including subaqueous outwash;
the Presumpscot Formation; and subaerial outwash, such as ice-contact de
washover fans (G-468).
Except for the GT unit, all of the glacial units
a marine environment (G-491; G-493; G-377; G-468).
The glacially derived overburden at Pease AFB is Wisconsinan in age.
Ba
information, glaciomarine deposits have been divided into four units as
to youngest):
Glacial Till (GT).
Lower Sand (LS).
Marine Clay and Silt (MCS).
Upper Sand (US).
The overburden at Pease AFB also includes sediment that is Recent in age
deposits and manmade fill.
Although all four units are present at Site
units may be absent at any particular location.
A more detailed discuss
overburden lithology is presented in the Draft Final Site 8 RI Report (G
B.
Hydrogeology
Groundwater occurs in both the bedrock and the overlying unconsolidated
AFB.
In some areas of Pease AFB, the unconsolidated deposits are unsatu
water table occurs in the bedrock unit.
At other locations, the GT and/
may form semiconfining layers and separate the shallow overburden waterfrom either the bedrock or a deeper overburden water-bearing zone.
Grou
MK01\RPT:00628026.003\site8rod.txt
8 was observed in the overburden and in bedrock.
overburden is unsaturated.
To the west and east o
Figure 4 illustrates the boundaries between
unsaturated overburden as measured in January 1992.
overburden conditions varies on a seasonal basis.
The extent of unsat
Figure 4 indicates th
overburden conditions exist east and west of the bedrock trough.
Overburden Hydrogeology
The saturated thickness in the overburden ranges from 0 feet (unsaturate
approximately 49.8 feet (at monitor well 5002).
Groundwater elevations
range from a maximum of 95 ft MSL near the former burn areas to a minimu
MSL toward the north, near piezometer 7064.
Figure 4 is a contour map o
elevations at Site 8 under static (nonpumping) conditions based on monit
in the overburden.
The figure was prepared from data recorded on 20 Jan
which time recovery wells 562A, 563, 564, and 566 had not been operating
water level elevations were the highest recorded over a 12-month period.
measured from hybrid wells are included in Figure 4 for reference only a
in developing the contours.
Where appropriate, water elevation data wer
effect of free-phase product.
In the former burn areas, groundwater flows principally from east to wes
of the bedrock trough along a horizontal gradient of 0.01 ft/ft.
Near t
former burn areas, the groundwater flow direction changes to the north-n
horizontal gradient decreases to 0.002 ft/ft.
Farther to the north, gro
directed to the northeast, toward Pickering Creek, where the horizontal
to 0.03 ft/ft.
Groundwater elevations in the overburden were observed to fluctuate 2 to
The highest groundwater elevations typically occurred in the spring and
the lowest groundwater elevations typically occurred in the late summer
MK01\RPT:00628026.003\site8rod.txt
A series of aquifer and laboratory tests was conducted to characterize
properties of the overburden at Site 8.
The hydraulic testing included
pumping tests, and long-term pumping tests in the overburden and bedroc
spoon samples were tested using a flexible-wall permeameter to calculat
conductivity.
Vertical hydraulic conductivities also were calculated f
but were considered to be inaccurate because the soil samples used in t
composited and recompacted, thereby destroying the horizontal structure
hydraulic conductivity estimated from the slug and pumping tests ranged
ft/day, and the geometric mean was 4.11 ft/day.
Based on laboratory an
collected from the US unit, the vertical hydraulic conductivity estimat
permeameter tests ranged from 0.005 to 6.2 ft/day, and the geometric me
Two long-term pumping tests were conducted in the overburden at well 56
first test, conducted in July 1991, the discharge rate was 2.5 gpm, and
recorded in any of the observation wells.
The second test, conducted d
1993, was performed at pumping rates between 16.5 and 15.8 gpm, resulti
approximately 9 feet of drawdown in well 562A.
The average results of
and recovery data analyses yielded an estimated transmissivity of 9,980
hydraulic conductivity of approximately 1,275 ft/day.
Bedrock Hydrogeology
The bedrock at Site 8 consists of weathered and/or fractured (shallow)
competent bedrock.
All Site 8 bedrock wells were completed in competen
the exception of monitor wells 6021, 6083, and 513, which were construc
bedrock wells.
Bedrock integrity influences the permeability of the bedrock.
Factors
bedrock integrity include chemical and physical weathering and fracture
Weathering and shallow fracturing are limited in areal extent across Si
the shallow bedrock is likely less important as a discrete hydrogeologi
MK01\RPT:00628026.003\site8rod.txt
<IMG SRC 0194093D>
elsewhere at Pease AFB.
For example, weathered bedrock was observed in
rock cores collected from Site 8, and shallow fracturing was observed in
from Site 8.
Competent bedrock in the vicinity of the site has negligible primary (in
thus, movement of groundwater in the competent bedrock is directly relat
structural fabric (i.e., bedding plane separations, foliation patterns,
sets).
Lithologic heterogeneities in the bedrock (e.g., diabase dikes)
groundwater flow locally, but are expected to have little influence on r
groundwater flow.
Groundwater elevations in the bedrock at Site 8 typically range from 95
FDTA-2 to 86 ft MSL west of FDTA-2, near monitor wells 620 and 637.
Fig
the Draft Final Site 8 FS Report (G-611) is a potentiometric elevation c
on measurements in bedrock wells collected on 20 January 1992.
In the b
groundwater flows toward the west and northwest across the site.
Horizo
range from 0.008 ft/ft across Site 8 to 0.03 ft/ft northwest of Site 8 t
Similar to overburden groundwater, groundwater elevations in the bedrock
feet seasonally.
The highest groundwater elevations typically occur in
summer, while the lowest elevations occur in late summer and fall.
The hydraulic properties of the bedrock water-bearing zone at Site 8 wer
slug test data collected from well 513, the results of three short-term
results of the long-term (48-hour) pumping test at well 622.
Appendix I
Site 8 FS Report (G-611) contains the results of the long-term pumping t
bedrock well 622.
The hydraulic conductivity of the competent bedrock r
slug tests and short-term pumping tests ranged from 0.02 to 0.30 ft/day,
mean was 0.13 ft/day.
However, data collected from the long-term pumpin
indicated that the mean hydraulic conductivity of the competent bedrock
4 ft/day.
The results of the long-term pumping test are considered to b
MK01\RPT:00628026.003\site8rod.txt
representative of actual site conditions since studies have indicated th
(i.e., the longer the duration) of a pumping test, the greater the perme
(G-93).
The higher hydraulic conductivity value estimated from the long
is attributed to the interception of more fractures during longer term t
porosity of the competent bedrock is estimated at 0.001 based on the res
term pumping test at well 622.
Groundwater seepage rates were estimated for the bedrock water-bearing z
range of horizontal hydraulic gradient values (0.008 to 0.03 ft/ft), a h
value of 4 ft/day, and a range of effective porosity of 0.01 to 0.001.
and these input values, the estimated bedrock groundwater seepage rates
from 3.2 to 120 ft/day.
C.
Distribution of Contaminants
Soil Quality
The maximum concentrations of organic compounds and metals detected in S
of Merrimac Drive are presented in Tables 2 and 3, respectively.
In gen
contamination is confined laterally to within 500 feet of the former bur
vertically confined by the water table, which fluctuates to create a sme
contaminants in the soil.
Soil contamination probably also exists as re
pore spaces where free-phase product has migrated through the vadose zon
results from soil boring logs and the mobile laboratory indicate that, n
Drive, soil contamination associated with Site 8 activities is limited t
capillary fringe (see Appendix B of the Draft Final Site 8 RI Report)(GSoil contamination at Site 8 primarily consists of AHCs and TPHs.
The l
extents of AHCs and TPHs beneath the three source areas are shown in a s
maps (Figures 5 through 7) that represent the area from the ground surfa
approximately 30 ft BGS.
The highest concentrations of TPHs and AHCs in
(0 to 5 ft BGS) were detected in the center of the two former burn areas
MK01\RPT:00628026.003\site8rod.txt
<IMG SRC 0194093E>
<IMG SRC 0194093F>
09/16/
<IMG SRC 0194093G>
contamination extending away from the former burn areas toward the north
field investigation, free-phase product was observed in wells 510, 540,
(see Figure 7), and soil contamination (TPHs and AHCs) probably exists a
15 ft BGS, near the water table.
Thus, although soil analytical results
depths greater than 15 ft BGS for the northern portion of the free-phase
deeper soil contamination (AHCs and TPHs) is assumed to be associated wi
phase product observed near the water table.
Benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylenes (BTEX) and chlorinated benze
1,4-dichlorobenzene (-DCB), chlorobenzene, and 1,2,4-trichlorobenzene] w
detected in soil at Site 8.
BTEX compounds are significant components o
highest concentrations of toluene and xylenes in soil (128 and 210 mg/kg
detected at the water table beneath the smaller of the two former burn a
The AHCs detected, with the exception of the chlorinated benzenes, have
water, and a separate LNAPL has formed on the water table surface.
Beca
migrate in the groundwater flow direction, soil contamination in the uns
the water table (capillary zone) also would be expected to exist in the
direction.
Halogenated hydrocarbons (HHCs) were detected less frequently than AHCs
were confined to soil samples collected west and south of the smaller fo
east of the larger former burn area.
The HHCs present in Site 8 soil in
dichloroethene (1,2-DCE), 1,2-dichloroethane (1,2-DCA), tetrachloroethen
tetrachloroethane (PCA), trichloroethene (TCE), and 1,1,1-trichloroethan
The highest concentrations of TCE and PCA (5 and 2.5 mg/kg, respectively
to the west of the smaller former burn area.
The highest concentration
detected near the ground surface (4 to 4.5 ft BGS), and the highest conc
was detected at the water table (30 to 30.5 ft BGS); otherwise, the leve
were below 0.02 mg/kg.
The highest concentration of PCE (0.018 mg/kg) w
along with 0.418 mg/kg of 1,1,1-TCA, in the 20 to 22 ft BGS sample from
MK01\RPT:00628026.003\site8rod.txt
the west of the cemetery.
09/16/94
With the exception of PCA, all HHCs detected
were detected in Site 8 groundwater.
Oxygenated hydrocarbons (OHCs) were detected north of the two former bur
smaller former burn area, and southwest of the larger former burn area.
detected in Site 8 soil include isophorone, vinyl acetate, 4-methyl-2-pe
acetone, and 2-butanone.
The highest concentration of OHCs (34,000 æg/k
2-pentanone) was detected in boring 714 at 7 ft BGS.
None of these comp
detected in Site 8 groundwater.
The distribution of PAHs at Site 8 appears to be limited to the former b
some PAHs were detected from 0 to 2 ft BGS south and west of the former
Naphthalene and 2-methylnaphthalene were the most commonly detected PAHs
soil.
Phenanthrene, pyrene, and chrysene also were detected at several
general, PAHs were detected in the former burn areas, to depths of 26.5
water table.
PAHs are known components of JP-4, and the occurrence of P
strongly with the occurrence of elevated levels (>100 mg/kg) of TPHs in
Naphthalene is the most mobile of the PAHs detected at Site 8, and is th
to migrate to the groundwater.
Naphthalene and 2-methylnaphthalene were
detected in groundwater at the highest concentrations.
Site 8 soil was originally sampled for total dioxins.
Dioxins were gene
upper 2 feet of soil in and around the former burn areas.
In September
was resampled for specific dioxin compounds to depths of 16 ft BGS.
in and around the former burn areas in the upper 2 feet of soil only.
Dio
T
concentration of dioxins [4.94 nanograms/gram (ng/g)] was detected in bo
term dioxin refers to related compounds known as chlorinated dibenzo-p-d
chlorinated dibenzofurans.
Dioxins occur as contaminants in several her
2,4,5-T and Silvex, and may result from the burning of chlorinated pheno
benzenes, and PCBs (G-357).
Herbicides were not detected in Site 8 soil
and the polychlorinated biphenyl (PCB) Aroclor-1260 was detected only in
MK01\RPT:00628026.003\site8rod.txt
(08-7144-B013) at Site 8.
Chlorinated benzenes were detected in Site 8
were detected outside of the former burn areas (borings 7145, 7148, 7015
The pesticides detected in Site 8 soil were DDT and its degradation prod
DDE, alpha- and gamma-chlordane, lindane (gamma-BHC), dieldrin, and hept
epoxide.
Pesticides were detected at depths to 15 ft BGS, although most
occurred in the shallow (0 to 2 ft BGS) soil.
Lindane, DDD, DDE, and DD
in groundwater at Site 8.
Sodium and trace amounts of antimony, arsenic, cadmium, chromium, copper
magnesium, manganese, mercury, molybdenum, nickel, thallium, and zinc we
levels exceeding the background concentrations for soil established from
boring samples at Pease AFB (see Table 3).
8 is shown in Figure 8.
The distribution of these me
Arsenic, cadmium, chromium, lead, mercury, moly
nickel are possible constituents present in fuel oil that may have been
8 prior to 1971.
Nickel is a common additive in JP-4 (G-357).
Most of
at concentrations that exceed background levels were detected within 150
burn areas.
Mercury and molybdenum were detected at concentrations exce
background levels in borings 7146 and 7147, which are located outside th
areas, along unpaved roads.
Cadmium and total chromium also were presen
concentrations exceeding background levels in boring 7146.
The metals d
concentrations exceeding background levels in the vicinity of the smalle
were located in the upper 6 feet of soil.
East of the larger former bur
detected at concentrations exceeding background levels to depths of 11.5
metals present at concentrations exceeding background levels in Site 8 s
and nickel also were present in groundwater at concentrations exceeding
Contaminant Levels (MCLs).
MK01\RPT:00628026.003\site8rod.txt
Groundwater Quality
Overburden/Hybrid Groundwater Quality
A total of 22 overburden wells and five hybrid wells were sampled at var
throughout the characterization of overburden/hybrid groundwater contami
8.
It should be noted that well 613 was originally constructed as a hyb
was reconstructed in February 1992 as a bedrock well and was renamed wel
613A has been sampled only once (March 1992), and the results of the ana
discussed herein under bedrock groundwater quality and are presented in
of the Draft Final Site 8 FS Report (G-611).
Piezometers 7751, 7752, an
installed to determine off-site groundwater quality at the locations of
6045, and 6046, respectively.
The three piezometers are discussed in th
dissolved-phase well groundwater.
In general, VOCs are more widespread and were detected at greater concen
overburden groundwater than in bedrock groundwater.
Both free-phase pro
dissolved-phase contamination are observed in the overburden groundwater
phase product was not observed downgradient of well 566; the dissolved-p
plume (primarily VOCs) extends off base at concentrations below MCLs (se
The following discussion of wells contaning free-phase product is divide
of product occurrence and a discussion of the chemical analyses of groun
free-phase product-containing wells.
Free-Phase Product Well Groundwater Quality
Free-phase product is present at the water table in the vicinity of the
Although the area of free-phase product is relatively limited in extent
product acts as a continuing source of dissolved-phase groundwater conta
Measurable amounts of free-phase product (LNAPLs) have been observed in
overburden groundwater recovery wells (563, 564, and 566) and in three o
MK01\RPT:00628026.003\site8rod.txt
<IMG SRC 0194093H>
<IMG SRC 0194093I>
groundwater monitor wells at Site 8 (510, 540, and 5006) (see Figure 9).
has not been observed in overburden recovery well 562A, located downgrad
phase product wells.
Measured product thicknesses ranged from 0 feet to
10.95 feet measured in well 563 during March 1991.
The product layer th
well varies as a function of a number of factors, including pumping rate
frequency, quantity and efficiency of product removal by the recovery we
elevation, and amount of rainfall.
Further, a discrepancy typically exi
apparent measured thickness and the actual product thickness in the subs
The apparent thickness reflects the thickness of the capillary fringe in
product thickness.
The weight of the product depresses the water level
increasing the apparent product thickness even more.
The ratio of appar
thickness to true product thickness typically ranges from 2 to 4, and ma
(G-112).
Samples of product have been collected from the o/w separator at the Sit
and directly from well 563, and the samples were analyzed.
are summarized in the Draft Final Site 8 RI Report (G-577).
The results
The detecte
include those expected for waste fuel and JP-4 product (i.e., BTEX, PCE,
pesticides; Aroclor-1260; and dioxins.
In general, groundwater samples from wells that contain free-phase produ
dissolved-phase contaminants similar to those contaminants found in the
4, 5, and 6 summarize the highest observed concentrations of each contam
groundwater from overburden wells that contain free-phase product.
As s
detected, benzene, ethylbenzene, and toluene all exceeded the referenced
concentrations (state or federal MCLs) in monitor well 563.
The detecte
exceeded guideline concentrations and are not considered to be common la
contaminants were 1,2-DCA, cis-1,2-DCE, trans-1,2-DCE, TCE, 1,2-dibromoe
vinyl chloride.
The SVOCs fluorene and bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate exce
concentration levels at monitor well 563.
The pesticides gamma-BHC and
detected at concentrations that exceed guidelines in groundwater at moni
MK01\RPT:00628026.003\site8rod.txt
Heptachlor epoxide and gamma-chlordane also were detected in well 510 at
equal to the guideline concentrations.
The dissolved metals detected ab
levels (G-609) were arsenic, cobalt, iron, lead, manganese, nickel, pota
and sodium.
Total metals whose concentrations exceeded background value
guidelines were arsenic, cobalt, lead, potassium, and sodium.
The HHCs that have been consistently detected in groundwater samples fro
containing free-phase product were TCE, cis-1,2-DCE, 1,2-DCA, and 1,1,1compounds only occasionally defected included 1,1-DCA, 1,1-DCE, trans-1,
vinyl chloride.
The AHCs that have been consistently detected in groundwater samples fro
containing free-phase product include benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, an
PAHs detected were generally naphthalene or 2-methylnaphthalene.
Pestic
DDT, DDE, and gamma-BHC) were detected in all groundwater samples from w
contain free-phase product, except those from well 5006.
A more detaile
free-phase product well groundwater quality is presented in the Draft Fi
(G-577).
Well 566 was sampled for dioxins/furans in November 1992.
detected.
No dioxins/fu
A groundwater sample collected in November 1992 from well 566
for 1,2-dibromoethane.
This compound was not detected.
Dissolved-Phase Contaminant Well Groundwater Quality
The dissolved-phase contamination observed in overburden and hybrid well
samples includes VOCs, SVOCs, and pesticides.
Tables 7, 8, and 9 summar
observed concentrations of each contaminant detected in groundwater samp
overburden and hybrid wells that contained only dissolved-phase contamin
of the AHCs detected in groundwater, the only contaminant concentrations
MCLs was for benzene in monitor well 511.
Benzene also was detected at
MK01\RPT:00628026.003\site8rod.txt
above MCLs in recovery well 562A.
The HHCs whose concentrations in grou
samples equalled or exceeded guidelines were 1,2-DCA, cis-1,2-DCE, and T
metals in groundwater that exceeded the maximum background concentration
for Pease AFB and federal regulatory values were arsenic, barium, beryll
chromium, and nickel.
The total lead concentration in groundwater excee
was below the maximum background concentration.
Figure 10 illustrates the distribution of these compounds.
The distribu
overburden groundwater appears to be well-defined if groundwater analyti
wells containing free-phase product are included in the analysis.
areas of HHC concentrations in the overburden at Site 8:
There
a northern and
The southern area is bounded on the north by wells 541 and 561, and the
limited to wells in the bedrock trough (north of well 510).
groundwater contamination in the southern area exceeds MCLs.
exceedances were noted only at well 562A.
7751, 7752, and 7786.
as that of the HHCs.
None of the
In the nor
HHCs were not detected in off
The distribution of AHCs in overburden wells is n
Groundwater samples from all overburden wells, exc
541, 561, and 5002, with dissolved-phase contamination indicated the pre
compounds (see Figure 11).
Benzene has not been detected in wells 541 a
and 1,2-dichlorobenzene have been detected in well 5002.
Only sec-butyl
detected in well 514 (see Figure 11).
detected in wells 511 and 562A.
Benzene concentrations that excee
AHCs were not detected in off-site piez
and 7786.
Groundwater samples collected from seven overburden wells (565, 539, 562
577, and 541) and one hybrid well (511) contained detectable concentrati
The groundwater sample collected from well 5049 contained concentrations
ethylhexyl) phthalate (a common laboratory contaminant) above the MCL.
not detected in off-site piezometers 7751, 7752, and 7786.
MK01\RPT:00628026.003\site8rod.txt
Pesticides have been detected on-site in wells 5003 and 539.
However, t
groundwater sampling event showed no evidence of pesticides in the overb
groundwater.
A groundwater sample collected in September 1992 was analy
dioxins/furans.
Octachlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxin (OCDD) was detected at
of 59 picograms/liter (pg/L) in a sample collected from well 565.
Groun
also were collected in November 1992 from wells 5002 and 562A and were a
dibromoethane (EDB).
This compound was not detected.
A number of groundwater samples collected from overburden wells containe
metals concentrations that exceeded proposed soluble metals maximum back
concentrations (G-609).
The dissolved metals detected at concentrations
proposed background levels were arsenic, calcium, cobalt, iron, manganes
sodium, vanadium, and thallium.
groundwater.
Table 8 summarizes the dissolved portio
Total metals whose concentrations exceeded established max
background levels and MCLs were arsenic, barium, beryllium, cadmium, chr
nickel.
The total lead concentration in groundwater exceeded the MCL, b
maximum background concentration.
A more detailed description of dissolved-phase contaminants in groundwat
in the Draft Final Site 8 RI Report (G-577).
Bedrock Groundwater Quality
Organic groundwater contamination in the bedrock is generally limited to
concentrations of VOCs.
Both HHCs and AHCs have been detected on- and o
highest detected concentrations of benzene, cis-1,2-DCE, and bis(2-ethyl
exceeded their respective referenced guidelines in at least one well.
The highest concentrations of HHCs in groundwater samples from bedrock w
detected in wells located downgradient of the former burn areas, where t
unit is absent (see Figure 12 of this report and Figure 1.4-10 of the Dr
MK01\RPT:00628026.003\site8rod.txt
<IMG SRC 0194093J>
<IMG SRC 0194093K>
<IMG SRC 0194093L>
Report) (G-611).
Groundwater samples from 11 bedrock wells (612, 613A,
637, 6021, 6022, 6025, 6044, and 6046) contained detectable concentratio
Figure 12 illustrates the distribution of these compounds and suggests t
areas of contaminant concentrations:
a south- and a northwest-trending
area is limited in extent and centered around well 612 (near the former
concentrations that exceed MCLs have not been detected in the southern a
is the only location where PCE has been detected in bedrock groundwater.
trending area extends from well 613A (along Merrimac Drive) toward well
cemetery).
Cis-1,2-DCE was present at concentrations exceeding its MCL
collected from wells 636 and 6022 and from samples collected from bedroc
the pumping test.
Bedrock well 622 was resampled in June 1993, under pu
conditions, to clarify significant inconsistencies in the laboratory ana
Appendix I of the Draft Final Site FS Report (G-611)].
The results of t
sampling round indicate that the maximum concentration of cis-1,2-DCE wa
is below the MCL of 70 æg/L.
Groundwater samples from 13 bedrock wells (513, 611, 612, 613A, 621, 622
6021, 6022, 6023, and 6025) contained detectable concentrations of AHCs.
of the AHCs is discussed in the Draft Final Site 8 FS Report (G-611).
T
various BTEX compounds in groundwater shows a pattern that may be explai
different rates of migration of the various BTEX compounds from a source
near the former burn areas [see Table 1.6-1 of the Draft Final Site 8 FS
Subsection 5.1 of the Draft Final Site 8 RI Report (G-577)].
Benzene co
exceeding the MCL were detected in wells 612, 622, and 636.
Low concentrations of SVOCs have been detected in bedrock groundwater sa
both on- and off-site.
The highest concentrations of SVOCs were detecte
samples collected from well 6024.
Pesticides were not detected in groun
collected from any bedrock wells.
MK01\RPT:00628026.003\site8rod.txt
09/16/94
Well 613A was sampled for dioxins/furans in September 1992.
were detected.
None of the
The dissolved metals whose concentrations exceeded backg
iron, lead, potassium, sodium, and vanadium.
The total metals whose con
exceeded background levels were iron, potassium, and sodium.
Surface Water and Sediment
Pickering Brook
Pickering Brook is a relatively narrow stream that originates on base bu
a northeasterly direction.
Several small tributaries enter Pickering Br
discharges to Flagstone Brook.
to discharge to Pickering Brook.
Overburden groundwater from the Site 8 a
In addition, sediment from the on-site
have discharged to Pickering Brook, especially during heavy rainfall eve
and sediment samples were collected at seven stations in the Pickering B
1988 through 1992.
These stations are shown in Figure 13.
Sediment sam
analyzed for TPHs, organic compounds, total organic carbon (TOC), and me
water samples were analyzed for organic compounds, ammonia as nitrogen,
inorganic compounds.
The analytical results indicate the presence of PAHs, pesticides, TPHs,
sediment samples collected along Pickering Brook (locations 8024, 8025,
The pesticide DDT and its metabolites DDD and DDE were detected at conce
exceeding the National Oceanic end Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Bio
Range ÄÄ Low (ERÄÄL) (G 415).
Total PAH concentrations ranged from appr
æg/kg (mostly naphthalene) at location 8027 (the farthest upstream locat
at location 8024 (the farthest downstream location) (see Figure 13).
Co
TPHs greater than 100 mg/kg were detected (using Method E418.1) at three
sampling locations (801A, 8024, and 8025).
The metals detected in sedim
above their respective ERÄÄL values were lead (locations 801A and 8089)
(location 8024).
MK01\RPT:00628026.003\site8rod.txt
<IMG SRC 0194093M>
The inorganic compounds detected in Pickering Brook surface water sample
the NHDES Freshwater Chronic Criteria (G-403) were aluminum (locations 8
8026, and 8027), iron (locations 801A and 8027), lead (locations 801A an
(location 801A), and zinc (location 801A).
based on a hardness of 20 mg/L CaCO3.
The exceedances for lead, ni
The highest concentrations of met
in the upper portion of the drainage area (see Figure 13).
Knights Brook
Knights Brook is located northwest of Site 8, entirely outside the Pease
originates as several small springs that merge and flow north to Little
spring water quality sampling are presented in Subsection 1.5.4.3 of the
FS Report (G-611).
Surface water and sediment samples were collected at
(8028 and 8029) in the Knights Brook drainage area during June 1991 (see
analytical results showed the presence of VOCs (toluene) and PAHs in bot
sampling locations in Knights Brook.
TPHs also were detected at locatio
was not detected in upgradient bedrock wells, and PAHs are relatively im
groundwater and are generally transported short distances via overland f
not detected above ERÄÄL values.
The organic contaminants detected in surface water samples from Knights
predominantly pesticides and VOCs.
Both contaminant types were detected
location 8029.
The VOC cis-1,2-DCE detected at location 8029 also was d
location 8028.
Cis-1,2-DCE is a degradation product produced by the deh
TCE, and is generally more mobile than TCE.
It is suspected that the pr
DCE and TCE in surface water samples collected from Knights Brook may be
to Site 8 activities because these contaminants were detected in upgradi
wells.
However, pesticides were not detected in upgradient bedrock well
detected above NHDES Freshwater Chronic Criteria.
MK01\RPT:00628026.003\site8rod.txt
Springs and Shallow Dug Wells
Sediment samples were collected from Watering Spring, Pickering Spring,
shallow dug well (see Figure 13).
Two VOCs [toluene (60 æg/kg) and 4-me
(MIBK) (2 J æg/kg)] were detected in the sediment sample collected from
(see Subsection 1.5.4.2 of the Draft Final Site 8 FS Report) (G-611).
likely due to laboratory contamination.
T
Mercury also was detected in on
sediment samples collected from Pickering Spring, but it is not present
Water samples were collected from Watering Spring, Pickering Spring, Fri
off-site shallow dug wells.
VOCs were not detected in these water sampl
follows.
The VOC cis-1,2-DCE was detected in water samples from Pickering Spring
1988, 1989, 1991, and 1992.
in 1990.
Cis-1,2-DCE was not detected in the water s
In addition, TCE was detected below the laboratory quantificat
water samples collected during May and June 1991 and January 1992.
been detected in water samples from Watering Spring.
Cis-
Also, toluene and
have been detected in water samples from the Coleman shallow dug well (s
5.3 of the Draft Final Site 8 RI Report) (G-577).
The inorganic compoun
water from one or more sampling locations whose concentrations exceed th
Freshwater Chronic Criteria were aluminum, iron, lead, and zinc (see Fig
inorganic compounds, the criteria for lead and zinc were based on a hard
CaCO3.
VI.
SUMMARY OF SITE RISKS
A risk assessment was performed to estimate the probability and magnitud
adverse human health and environmental effects from exposure to contamin
with the site.
The risk assessment followed a four-step process:
MK01\RPT:00628026.003\site8rod.txt
1.
Data evaluation and contaminant identification, which identif
chemicals that, given the specifics of the site, were of sign
concern.
2.
Exposure assessment, which identified actual or potential exp
characterized the potentially exposed populations, and determ
of possible exposure.
3.
Toxicity assessment, which considered the types and magnitude
health effects associated with exposure to the chemicals of c
4.
Risk characterization, which integrated the first three steps
potential for cancer and adverse noncancer health effects pos
evaluated receptors.
The results of the baseline human health and ecological risk assessments
discussed in the subsections that follow.
A.
Human Health Risk Assessment
A number of chemicals of concern (listed in Tables 10 through 16) were s
evaluation in the human health risk assessment.
The potential risks to
evaluated separately for each medium, in accordance with guidance from E
The media that were considered were soil, groundwater, surface water, an
soil data were evaluated separately for a hot spot (a former burn area)
of the soil (main soil).
The groundwater data were assessed separately
and bedrock water-bearing zones, and for a hot spot in the overburden.
and sediment data for Knights and Pickering Brooks also were evaluated s
A most reasonable maximally exposed individual (RME) was selected for ea
based on both current and future land and water uses.
The site is curre
land use at Site 8 within the base boundaries was assumed to continue as
although future residential development may occur off base.
The groundw
currently used, but could potentially be used for drinking or other purp
The surface water might be used for recreational activities, either curr
MK01\RPT:00628026.003\site8rod.txt
The current and future RMEs that were selected for each medium are prese
17.
The exposure routes that were considered are presented by medium in
Each RME was evaluated for potential cancer and noncancer health effects
for cancer risk was expressed as the probability of developing cancer ov
Maximum cancer risk is usually regulated at hazardous waste sites in the
(i.e., 1-in-1-million to 1-in-10,000).
concern.
Risks of less than 10-6 are not
The potential for noncancer health risks was expressed as a ha
hazard index of greater than 1 is usually considered the benchmark for p
The total lifetime cancer risks and total hazard indices are presented b
19 through 22.
Where applicable, the cancer risks and hazard indices we
three concentrations:
maximum.
the mean, the upper 95% confidence limit of the m
Chemicals that exceeded a 10-6 lifetime cancer risk and/or a h
also are indicated in each table.
medium.
Table 23 provides a summary of chemic
For the main soil, the cancer risks ranged from 3 x 10-7 to 9 x
furans, PAHs, and/or arsenic contributed most of the risk, posing greate
at all exposure concentrations for the future scenarios.
The cancer ris
dioxins/furans are likely to be overestimates of the upper-bound risk.
data concerning the presence of the 2,3,7,8- isomers of the penta-, hept
chlorinated compounds, it was conservatively assumed that these compound
entirely as the 2,3,7,8- isomers, the only dioxin/furan isomers that are
potentially carcinogenic.
1 x 10-8 to 2 x 10-7.
The cancer risks posed by contact with hot sp
There was no apparent risk of noncancer health ef
with either main or hot spot soil.
The total hazard indices for soil we
exposure concentrations.
Cancer risks based on use of the overburden groundwater for domestic pur
from 3 x 10-5 to 4 x 10-5 based on either filtered or unfiltered (total)
bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate, 1,4-DCB, 1,2-DCA, and vinyl chloride each p
a 10-6 risk at one or more exposure concentrations.
The total hazard in
MK01\RPT:00628026.003\site8rod.txt
3 to 20 based on either filtered or unfiltered samples.
1,2,4-Trimethyl
hazard index of 10, and naphthalene and manganese (unfiltered and filter
exceeded a hazard index of 1 at one or more exposure concentrations.
For the bedrock groundwater, cancer risk ranged from 7 x 10-5 to 2 x 10samples, and from 3 x 10-4 to 3 x 10-3 based on unfiltered samples.
posed by arsenic (>10-4 at several exposure concentrations).
The
Benzene, b
phthalate, and 1,2-DCA each posed a >10-6 risk at one or more exposure c
The total hazard indices ranged from 1 to 5 based on filtered samples, a
based on unfiltered samples.
Based on the data for unfiltered samples,
exceeded a hazard index of 10 at the maximum concentration, and had a ha
between 1 and 10 at the other exposure concentrations.
Other chemicals
index between 1 and 10 based on the unfiltered data were chromium (as ch
manganese, and nickel.
Cancer risks for the hot spot groundwater ranged from 1 x 10-1 to 5 x 10
filtered or unfiltered samples.
Several chemicals posed a risk of great
one or more exposure concentrations:
TCE, vinyl chloride, and arsenic.
benzene, 4,4'-DDD, 4-4'-DDT, 1,2-d
Bis(2-ethylhexyl) phthalate, 1,4-dich
methylene chloride each posed a risk between 10-6 and 10-4 at all exposu
The total hazard indices for hot spot groundwater ranged from approximat
based on either filtered or unfiltered samples.
Chemicals that exceeded
10 at one or more exposure concentrations were 2-methylnaphthalene, naph
2-nitroaniline, 1,2,4-trimethylbenzene, and arsenic.
A number of other
indices between 1 and 10.
The cancer risks posed by surface water and sediment contact were minima
Knights Brook and Pickering Brook.
Cancer risks posed by surface water
from 5 x 10-8 to 6 x 10-8 for Knights Brook and from 2 x 10-7 to 5 x 10The cancer risks posed by contact with sediment in Knights Brook was app
10-7 at all exposure concentrations.
The cancer risks posed by contact
MK01\RPT:00628026.003\site8rod.txt
Pickering Brook ranged from 2 x 10-7 to 4 x 10-7.
There is no apparent
noncancer health effects posed by contact with surface water or sediment
and Pickering Brook.
The total hazard indices for surface water and sed
Knights Brook and Pickering Brook were below the criterion of concern of
B.
Ecological Risk Assessment
The potential risks to ecological receptors were evaluated for all media
the possibiliy of exposure exists.
The media considered were surface so
surface water, and sediment.
As with the human health risk assessment,
evaluated separately for the former 1-acre burn area (hot spot) and the
site (main site) soil.
The potential for adverse impacts on aquatic lif
separately for the surface water and sediment of Pickering Brook and Kni
The ecological receptors used to evaluate the potential risks represent
communities for which the potential of risk seemed most probable and for
data exist to determine the likelihood of impact.
The receptors and exp
evaluated in the ecological risk assessment are presented in Table 24.
The potential risk posed to ecological receptors (i.e., deer mouse, chip
aquatic communities) was assessed by comparing estimated daily doses or
concentrations with critical toxicity values (CTVs) or appropriate mediu
values.
Hazard quotients were calculated, by contaminant, for each rece
estimated daily intake by the CTV, or, when medium-specific criteria wer
concentrations were compared directly to criteria to determine the corre
quotient.
Hazard quotients were summed across all exposure pathways for
contaminant, by receptor, to develop specific hazard indices.
A hazard index of less than 1 indicates adverse effects are not likely t
is required.
A hazard index of greater than 10 indicates that risks are
and action is usually required.
A hazard index between 1 and 10 is subj
MK01\RPT:00628026.003\site8rod.txt
based on the toxicity of the chemical and the uncertainty in the calcula
the chemical, and the more uncertainty in the risk calculation, the less
with hazard indices between 1 and 10.
The total hazard indices for all ecological receptors are presented in T
hazard indices for ecological receptors were calculated using two concen
maximum, where available.
The following paragraphs provide an overview
of the Site 8 ecological risk assessment and highlight contaminants that
substantially to the total hazard for each receptor.
The total hazard indices for the deer mouse ranged from 9.2 to 88.
The
contributors to the hazard indices for the main site were lead and dioxi
boron and n-nitrosodiphenylamine in vegetation.
The primary chemical of
hot spot was lead in soil and vegetation.
Total hazard indices for the chipping sparrow ranged from 4.8 to 1.6 x 1
main site and hot spot, the consumption of potentially contaminated vege
pathway of greatest concern.
The chemicals of concern in surface soil t
substantially to the total hazard indices at the main site were copper a
Xylenes (total) was the chemical of greatest concern at the hot spot.
Potential risks to aquatic life inhabiting Pickering Brook and Knights B
by comparing surface water contaminant concentrations to Ambient Water Q
(AWQC), or to aquatic toxicity data when AWQC were not available.
The h
based on acute and chronic criteria for Pickering Brook and Knights Broo
in Tables 27 and 28, respectively.
The potential risks to aquatic, benthic, and epibenthic life inhabiting
Pickering Brook and Knights Brook were assessed by comparing sediment or
water concentrations to ERÄÄL values or chronic freshwater AWQC.
For Pi
the following chemicals of concern had hazard quotients (HQs) greater th
MK01\RPT:00628026.003\site8rod.txt
concentrations:
0
4,4'-DDE (HQ=150), 4,4'-DDD (HQ=75), 4,4'-DDT (HQ=34),
(HQ=2.1), mercury (HQ=1.1), and nickel (HQ=1.1).
For Knights Brook, the
chemicals of concern had hazard quotients greater than 1 at the maximum
naphthalene (HQ=1.6), acenaphthene (HQ=12), and mercury (HQ=1.6).
The h
quotients based on comparisons to NOAA ERÄÄL values or chronic AWQC for
Brook and Knights Brook are presented in Tables 29 and 30, respectively.
discussion of the ecological risk assessment is presented in Section 6 o
8 and Zone 5 RI Reports (G-577; G-635).
VII.
A.
DEVELOPMENT AND SCREENING OF REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVES
Statutory Requirements/Response Objectives
Section 121 of CERCLA establishes several statutory requirements and pre
including the following:
remedial actions must be protective of human h
environment; remedial actions, when complete, must comply with all feder
stringent state environmental standards, requirements, criteria, or limi
is invoked; the remedial action selected must be cost-effective and use
and alternative treatment technologies or resource recovery technologies
extent practicable, and a preference for remedies in which treatment tha
significantly reduces the toxicity, mobility, or volume (TMV) of the haz
is a principal element over remedies not involving such treatment.
Reme
were developed to be consistent with these mandates.
Based on preliminary information relating to types of contaminants, envi
of concern, and potential exposure pathways, remedial action objectives
developed to aid in the development and screening of alternatives.
Thes
developed to mitigate existing and future potential threats to human hea
environment via source control and management of migration of groundwate
The RAOs for Site 8 were identified as follows:
MK01\RPT:00628026.003\site8rod.txt
09/
Soil
Protect ecological receptors from direct contact with, or ing
containing contaminants in concentrations that may present an
risk.
Prevent leaching of contaminants from soil to groundwater tha
in groundwater contamination that may present a health risk (
carcinogenic risk greater than 10-4, or a hazard index greate
Groundwater
Protect human receptors from ingestion of contaminated ground
may present a health risk (total carcinogenic risk greater th
hazard index greater than 1).
Prevent discharge of contaminated groundwater to surface wate
it may present increased risks to human health and the enviro
B.
Technology and Alternative Development and Screening
CERCLA and the National Contingency Plan (NCP) set forth the process by
actions are evaluated and selected.
In accordance with these requiremen
alternatives was developed for Site 8.
With respect to source control, the RI/FS developed a range of alternati
treatment that reduces the TMV of the hazardous substances is a principa
range included an alternative that removes or destroys hazardous substan
maximum extent feasible, eliminating or minimizing to the degree possibl
long-term management.
This range also included alternatives that treat
posed by the site but vary in the degree of treatment employed and the q
characteristics of the treatment residuals and untreated waste that must
alternatives that involve little or no treatment but provide protection
or institutional controls; and a no-action alternative.
In Section 3 of the Draft Final Site 8 FS Report (G-611), technologies w
assessed, and screened based on implementability, effectiveness, and cos
MK01\RPT:00628026.003\site8rod.txt
09/16/9
technologies were placed in the categories identified in Section 300.430
Section 4 of the Site 8 Draft Final FS Report (G-611) presents the remed
developed by combining the technologies.
The purpose of the initial scr
reduce the number of potential remedial actions for further detailed ana
preserving a range of options.
The alternatives retained after the init
evaluated in detail in Sestion 5 of the Draft Final Site 8 FS Report (GEight alternatives were retained for detailed analysis.
Table 31 identi
alternatives that were identified through the screening process.
VIII.
DESCRIPTION OF REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVES
This subsection describes each alternative evaluated.
A detailed tabula
alternative is presented in Tables 5.2-1 through 5.2-8 of the Draft Fina
(G-611).
Alternative 1
The no-action/institutional control alternative for Site 8 is limited to
access restrictions and institutional controls:
Placement of a security fence and warning signs around the si
Long-term environmental monitoring, including groundwater, su
and sediment sampling and analysis.
Placement of deed restrictions on future land development and
groundwater at the site. The restrictions would remain in ef
decades.
Attachment of easements restricting groundwater use on off-ba
where groundwater contaminants at concentrations exceeding cl
can be traced to the contaminant source area at Site 8. The
restrict the use of contaminated groundwater and allow access
as necessary for performance of monitoring or remedial action
MK01\RPT:00628026.003\site8rod.txt
09/16/94
Extension of a public drinking water system to off-base prope
groundwater contaminants at concentrations exceeding cleanup
traced to the contaminant source area at Site 8. (Note: Mon
residential wells, to date, does not indicate the presence of
contaminants; however, this precaution is considered necessar
alternative.)
No treatment of soil or groundwater, nor recovery of free-phase product,
response action.
Removal of contaminants would occur only by mechanisms
attenuation, such as biodegradation, volatilization, and dilution.
Estimated
Estimated
Estimated
Estimated
Estimated
time for design and construction: 6 months.
period of operation: 30 years.
capital cost: $313,000.
operation and maintenance (O&M) cost (net present worth):
total cost (net present worth): $1,340,000.
Alternative 2
This alternative would consist of the following components:
Management of migration in the downgradient overburden and be
water-bearing zones. The groundwater recovery system would b
prevent continued downgradient migration of dissolved-phase g
contamination that exceeds cleanup goals. The combined pumpi
overburden and bedrock recovery systems is estimated to excee
Construction and operation of an on-site GWTP to treat ground
extracted for management of migration. The proposed GWTP was
to accommodate a maximum flow of 60 gallons per minute (gpm).
treatment processes to be employed in the GWTP are discussed
Section 5 of the Draft Final Site 8 FS Report (G-611). Treat
would be discharged to subsurface recharge trenches. Effluen
proposed GWTP would comply with the requirements of Env-Ws 41
groundwater remediation system. Effluent would be monitored
compounds at a frequency agreed to during remedial design.
Placement of a security fence and warning signs around the so
Placement of institutional controls restricting future land d
of groundwater.
MK01\RPT:00628026.003\site8rod.txt
09/16/94
Long-term environmental monitoring, including groundwater, su
and sediment sampling and analysis.
Estimated
Estimated
Estimated
Estimated
Estimated
time for design and construction: 12 months.
period of operation: 30 years.
capital cost: $1,189,500.
O&M cost (net present worth): $5,445,000.
total cost (net present worth): $6,635,000.
Alternative 3
This alternative would consist of the following components:
Construction of a groundwater/free-phase product recovery tre
downgradient of the free-phase product plume to minimize offof contaminated overburden groundwater and free-phase product
estimated that the trench would recover a maximum of 2 gpm of
Installation of approximately 40 product recovery wells in ar
greatest amounts of free-phase product have been detected. I
that dual-phase pumps would be installed in 10 of the wells,
skimming pumps would be installed in the remaining wells. Ba
at which product has been recovered during the IRM, it is est
maximum of 20 gallons per day (gpd) of product would be recov
product recovery wells. It is estimated that 0.10 gpm of gro
be extracted by each of the dual-phase pumping systems.
Off-base treatment/disposal of recovered free-phase product.
Management of migration in the downgradient overburden and be
water-bearing zones. The groundwater recovery system would b
prevent continued downgradient migration of dissolved-phase g
contamination that exceeds cleanup goals.
Construction and operation of an on-site GWTP to treat ground
extracted for management of migration. Treated groundwater w
discharged to subsurface recharge trenches.
Placement of a security fence and warning signs around the so
Placement of institutional controls on future land developmen
groundwater at the site.
MK01\RPT:00628026.003\site8rod.txt
09/16/94
Long-term environmental monitoring, including groundwater, su
and sediment sampling and analysis.
Institutional controls and access restrictions, including fencing and de
be implemented as described for Alternative 2.
Management of dissolved
migration in downgradient overburden and bedrock groundwater would be im
for Alternative 2.
Environmental monitoring proposed for this alternati
implemented as described in Appendix G of the Draft Final Site 8 FS Repo
Estimated
Estimated
Estimated
Estimated
Estimated
time for design and construction: 8 to 12 months.
period of operation: 30 years.
capital cost: $1,830,300.
O&M cost (net present worth): $6,016,000.
total cost (net present worth): $7,846,000.
Alternative 4
Alternative 4 includes the following components:
In situ SVE of source area soil contaminated at concentration
goals, and treatment of extracted soil vapor for removal of v
organics.
Construction of an asphaltic concrete cap (blacktop pavement)
rainfall and snowmelt infiltration into the area of SVE treat
will aid in lowering the water table.
Construction of groundwater/free-phase product recovery trenc
downgradient of the free-phase product plume as a contingency
trenches would only be installed in the unlikely event that f
begins to migrate away from the source area.
Recovery and off-base disposal of free-phase product floating
table in the source area.
Management of migration in the downgradient overburden waterzone. The groundwater recovery system will be designed to ca
phase overburden groundwater contaminants whose concentration
cleanup goals, and designed to prevent continued migration of
groundwater to the bedrock water-bearing zone.
MK01\RPT:00628026.003\site8rod.txt
09/16/
Construction of a new GWTP for long-term treatment of recover
groundwater because of an increase in the volume of extracted
Treated groundwater would be discharged to subsurface recharg
Environmental monitoring during remedial operations.
Perform long-term environmental monitoring, including groundw
water, and sediment sampling and analysis.
Estimated
Estimated
Estimated
Estimated
Estimated
time for design and construction: 18 months.
period of operation: 30 years.
capital cost: $7,257,596.
O&M cost (net present worth): $6,117,375.
total cost (net present worth): $13,374,971.
Alternative 5
This alternative includes the same source area remedial action as the pr
(Alternative 4), but the management of migration action includes the ext
overburden and bedrock groundwater rather than overburden groundwater on
Alternative 4. This alternative would consist of the following componen
In situ SVE treatment of source area soil contaminated at con
above cleanup goals, and treatment of extracted soil vapor fo
volatilized organics.
Construction of an asphaltic concrete cap to minimize rainfal
infiltration into the area of SVE treatment. The cap would a
the groundwater table.
Recovery and off-base disposal of free-phase product floating
table in the source area.
Management of migration in the downgradient overburden and be
water-bearing zones. The groundwater recovery system would b
prevent continued downgradient migration of dissolved-phase g
contamination that exceeds cleanup goals.
Construction and operation of an on-site GWTP to treat ground
extracted for management of migration. Treated groundwater w
discharged to subsurface recharge trenches.
MK01\RPT:00628026.003\site8rod.txt
09/19/94
Environmental monitoring during remedial operations.
Long-term environmental monitoring, including groundwater, su
and sediment sampling and analysis.
Institutional controls would be implemented in the same manner as for Al
access restrictions and deed restrictions would remain in-place until sa
confirmed that remedial actions had eliminated the need for restrictions
monitoring also would be implemented as described for Alternative 1.
Be
aggressive remedial actions associated with Alternative 5, the duration
monitoring likely would be shorter for Alternative 5 than for Alternativ
Estimated
Estimated
Estimated
Estimated
Estimated
time for design and construction: 12 months.
period of operation:
30 years.
capital cost: $5,720,000.
O&M cost (net present worth): $8,169,569.
total cost (net present worth): $13,890,000.
Alternative 6
This alternative would include the following components:
Excavation and ex situ, solid-phase biological/vapor extracti
former burn area soil contaminated at concentrations in exces
goals. An estimated 42,000 yd3 of former burn area soil are
concentrations above cleanup goals and thus require treatment
and remove all former burn area soil requiring treatment, an
175,000 yd3 of soil would be excavated. This alternative als
treatment of offgas for removal of volatilized organics, and
of treated soil into the former burn area excavation.
Extraction, treatment, and disposal of groundwater and free-p
the bottom of the open excavation for a period of approximate
A groundwater/product mixture would be pumped from the excava
rate of approximately 25 gpm. It is estimated that this pump
lower the water table in the excavation by a maximum of 2 fee
MK01\RPT:00628026.003\site8rod.txt
09/16/94
In situ SVE treatment of vadose zone soil in the migrating fr
zone. Treatment of extracted soil vapor for removal of volat
also would be involved in this alternative.
Management of migration in the downgradient overburden and be
water-bearing zones. The groundwater recovery system would b
capture dissolved-phase groundwater contamination that exceed
goals.
Construction and operation of an on-site GWTP to treat ground
extracted as part of the excavation dewatering and management
remedial actions. The unit processes are discussed in detail
the Draft Final Site 8 FS Report (G-611). Treated groundwate
discharged to subsurface recharge trenches.
Environmental monitoring during remedial operations.
Long-term environmental monitoring, including groundwater, su
and sediment sampling and analysis.
Institutional controls would be implemented in the same manner as for Al
access restrictions and deed restrictions would remain in-place until sa
confirmed that cleanup goals in restricted media had been attained.
Env
monitoring also would be implemented as described in Appendix G of the D
8 FS Report (G-611).
Owing to the remedial actions associated with Alte
duration of environmental monitoring likely would be considerably shorte
6 than for Alternative 1.
Estimated
Estimated
Estimated
Estimated
Estimated
time for design and construction: 12 months.
period of operation: 30 years.
capital cost: $18,430,300.
O&M cost (net present worth): $6,876,000.
total cost (net present worth): $25,306,000.
MK01\RPT:00628026.003\site8rod.txt
09/16/94
Alternative 7
This alternative would include the following components:
Excavation and on-site thermal desorption of former burn area
contaminant concentrations that exceed cleanup goals.
Excavation and stockpiling of soil not requiring treatment th
removed to access soil requiring treatment.
Extraction, treatment, and disposal of ponded groundwater and
product in the bottom of the open excavation for a period of
6 months.
In situ SVE treatment of vadose zone soil in the migrating fr
zone, and treatment of extracted soil vapor for removal of vo
Management of migration in the downgradient overburden and be
water-bearing zones. The groundwater recovery system would b
capture dissolved-phase groundwater contamination that exceed
goals.
Construction and operation of an on-site GWTP to treat ground
extracted as part of the excavation dewatering and management
remedial actions. Treated groundwater would be discharged to
recharge trenches.
Off-base treatment/disposal of recovered floating product at
transport, storage, and disposal (TSD) facility.
Environmental monitoring during remedial operations.
Long-term environmental monitoring, including groundwater, su
and sediment sampling and analysis.
Stabilization of treated soil that failed Toxicity Characteri
Procedure (TCLP) testing for metals.
Backfilling of treated and stabilized soil into the excavatio
Backfilling of soil not requiring treatment, whose excavation
the removal of soil requiring treatment.
MK01\RPT:00628026.003\site8rod.txt
09/16/94
This alternative is similar to Alternative 6, with the exception that th
be substituted for bioremediation/vapor excavation as the ex situ soil t
Excavation, screening, segregation, and stockpiling of former burn area
implemented as described for Alternative 6, with the following exception
removed from the excavation at a rate equal to the rate of soil treatmen
200 yd3/day) by the on-site thermal desorption units.
This would avoid
to 40,000 yd3 of contaminated soil awaiting treatment outside of the exc
soil would be stockpiled until completion of the excavation dewatering r
Institutional controls would be implemented in the same manner as for Al
access restrictions and deed restrictions would remain in-place until sa
confirmed that remedial actions had eliminated the need for restrictions
monitoring also would be implemented as described in Appendix G of the D
8 FS Report (G-611).
Because of the remedial actions associated with Al
duration of environmental monitoring likely would be considerably shorte
7 than for Alternative 1.
Estimated
Estimated
Estimated
Estimated
Estimated
time for design and construction: 18 months.
period of operation: 30 years.
capital cost: $27,271,400.
O&M cost (net present worth): $6,091,000.
total cost (net present worth): $33,362,000.
Alternative 8
This alternative would include the following components:
Excavation and on-site thermal desorption of all source area
contaminant concentrations that exceed cleanup goals.
Excavation and stockpiling of soil not requiring treatment th
removed to access soil requiring treatment.
MK01\RPT:00628026.003\site8rod.txt
09/16/94
Extraction, treatment, and disposal of ponded groundwater and
product ponded in the bottom of the open excavations for a pe
approximately 6 months.
Management of migration in the downgradient overburden and be
water-bearing zones. The groundwater recovery system would b
capture dissolved-phase groundwater contamination that exceed
goals.
Construction and operation of an on-site GWTP to treat ground
extracted as part of the excavation dewatering and management
remedial actions. Treated groundwater would be discharged to
recharge trenches.
Off-base treatment/disposal of recovered floating product at
TSD facility.
Environmental monitoring during remedial operations.
Long-term environmental monitoring, including groundwater, su
and sediment sampling and analysis.
Stabilization of treated soil that failed TCLP testing for me
Backfilling of treated and stabilized soil into the excavatio
Backfilling of soil not requiring treatment, whose excavation
removal of soil requiring treatment.
Environmental monitoring and controls during remedial operati
Alternative 8 is identical to Alternative 7, with the exception that soi
floating product zone (i.e., product that has migrated downgradient of t
areas) would be excavated and treated by thermal desorption rather than
SVE.
The excavation and stockpiling of source area soil would be as described
except that the volume of contaminated soil removed would be 59,000 yd3
excavation would be performed in two stages.
The initial stage of excav
the same excavation area volume and procedures as described for Alternat
MK01\RPT:00628026.003\site8rod.txt
09/16/94
estimated that approximately 17,000 yd3 of contaminated soil would be ex
treated during the second stage.
Estimated
Estimated
Estimated
Estimated
Estimated
IX.
time for design and construction: 30 months.
period of operation:
30 years.
capital cost: $35,616,100.
O&M cost (net present worth): $5,057,000.
total cost (net present worth): $40,674,000.
SUMMARY OF THE COMPARATIVE ANALYSIS OF REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVES
Section 121(b)(1) of CERCLA presents several factors that must be consid
assessing remedial alternatives.
Building on these specific statutory m
promulgated nine evaluation criteria to be used in assessing individual
A detailed analysis was performed on the alternatives using the nine eva
select a site remedy.
A summary of the comparison of each alternative's
weaknesses with respect to the nine evaluation criteria is presented as
in Table 32 in Appendix E.
A detailed comparison of alternatives is pre
5 of the Draft Final Site 8 FS Report (G-611).
Threshold Criteria
The two threshold criteria that follow must be met for the remedial alte
eligible for selection in accordance with the NCP:
1.
Overall protcetion of human health and the environment addres
remedy provides adequate protection and describes how risks p
each pathway are eliminated, reduced, or controlled through t
engineering controls, or institutional controls.
2.
Compliance with Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requir
(ARARs) addresses whether a remedy will meet all of the ARARs
federal and state environmental laws, and/or will provide gro
invoking a waiver.
MK01\RPT:00628026.003\site8rod.txt
09/16/
Primary Balancing Criteria
The following five criteria are used to compare and evaluate the element
to another that meet the threshold criteria:
3.
Long-term effectiveness and permanence addresses the criteria
assess alternatives for the long-term effectiveness and perma
along with the degree of certainty that they will prove succe
4.
Reduction of toxicity, mobility, or volume (TMV) through trea
the degree to which alternatives employ recycling or treatmen
the TMV of contaminants, including how treatment is used to a
principal threats posed by the site.
5.
Short-term effectiveness addresses the period of time needed
protection and any adverse impacts on human health and the en
that may be posed during the construction and implementation
cleanup goals are achieved.
6.
Implementability addresses the technical and administrative f
remedy, including the availability of materials and services
implement a particular option.
7.
Cost includes estimated capital, operation and maintenance (O
present-worth costs.
Modifying Criteria
The modifying criteria that are used in the final evaluation of remedial
generally after public comments on the RI and FS Reports and Proposed Pl
are as follows:
8.
State acceptance addresses the state's position and key conce
preferred alternative and other alternatives, and the state's
ARARs or the proposed use of waivers.
9.
Community acceptance addresses the public's general response
alternatives described in the Proposed Plan and RI and FS Rep
MK01\RPT:00628026.003\site8rod.txt
09/16/94
A detailed tabular assessment of each alternative according to the nine
in Tables 5.2-1 through 5.2-8 of the Draft Final Site 8 FS Report (G-611
Following the detailed analysis of each alternative, a comparative analy
relative performance of each alternative against the nine criteria, was
comparative analysis is summarized in Table 32.
The following subsections describe the nine criteria, including the two
discussed in the Draft Final Site 8 FS Report (G-611); a brief narrative
alternatives; and the alternatives' strengths and weaknesses according t
comparative analysis.
A.
Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment
Overall protection of human health and the environment addresses how an
a whole will protect human health and the environment.
This includes an
how human health and environmental risks are properly eliminated, reduce
through treatment, engineering controls, or institutional controls.
The preferred alternative (Alternative 4) for remediating contamination
designed to provide overall protection by preventing continued leaching
from soil containing contaminant concentrations exceeding cleanup goals
groundwater.
This will be accomplished by removing VOCs from soil via S
recovering free-phase product using the skimmer pumps and, potentially,
recovery trench.
Alternative 4 also is designed to prevent further migr
groundwater via groundwater extraction.
All the other alternatives, exc
action/institutional control alternative (Alternative 1), also are prote
and the environment.
MK01\RPT:00628026.003\site8rod.txt
09/16/
B.
Compliance with Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements
Compliance with ARARs addresses whether a remedy complies with all state
environmental and public health laws and requirements that apply or are
appropriate to the conditions and cleanup options at a specific site.
I
met, the reasons must be clearly stated and a waiver may be required.
With the exception of the no-action alternative (Alternative 1), all the
received detailed analysis in the FS would meet the ARARs.
The no-actio
would not meet ARARs because it would potentially allow continued migrat
contaminants from the highly contaminated source area groundwater and so
site.
C.
Long-Term Effectiveness and Permanence
Long-term effectiveness and permanence refers to the ability of an alter
reliable protection of human health and the environment over time once t
have been met.
All the alternatives, except the no-action/institutional control alterna
would provide long-term effectiveness because they all include removing
contamination from source area soil.
Alternative 1, the no-action/insti
alternative, is not considered permanent or effective in the long term.
D.
Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility, or Volume of Contaminants Through T
Reduction of TMV of contaminants through treatment includes the three pr
of the overall performance of an alternative.
The 1986 amendments to th
Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA) emphasize that, whenever possi
remedy should be selected that uses a treatment process to permanently r
MK01\RPT:00628026.003\site8rod.txt
09/1
of toxicity of contaminants at the site, the spread of contaminants away
contamination, and the volume or amount of contamination at the site.
All the source control alternatives, except Alternative 1 (the no-action
alternative), reduce, to some extent, the TMV of contaminants because th
either soil treatment and/or groundwater migration control.
E.
Short-Term Effectiveness
Short-term effectiveness refers to the likelihood of adverse impacts on
environment that may be posed during the construction and implementation
alternative until cleanup goals are achieved.
All of the alternatives retained for detailed analysis in the FS would b
term.
Because of the potential for release of contaminants through vola
excavation activities, however, special engineering precautions would be
the potential for contaminant emissions to ensure short-term protection
nearby residents during cleanup-related construction activities.
Becaus
5 require no large-scale excavations and have less risk of contaminant e
alternatives rated higher than Alternatives 6, 7, and 8, which do includ
excavation and handling of highly contaminated soil.
F.
Implementability
Implementability refers to the technical and administrative feasibility
including the availability of materials and services needed to implement
All the alternatives in the detailed analysis are implementable and have
successfully at other sites.
However, potential difficulties in staging
alternatives (Alternatives 6, 7, and 8) could prove to be extremely diff
larger quantities of soil and the limited area available to stage the so
MK01\RPT:00628026.003\site8rod.txt
G.
09/1
Cost
The estimated present-worth costs of the alternatives are shown in Table
H.
State Acceptance
NHDES has been involved in oversight of the study of Pease AFB since the
summarized in Section II of this document.
The RI was performed with an
with state and EPA oversight in accordance with the FFA.
NHDES has revi
Final Site 8 Proposed Plan (G-679) and concurs with the selected remedy.
Declaration of Concurrence is presented as Appendix B.
I.
Community Acceptance
The comments received during the public comment period and the public he
Proposed Plan and FS Report are summarized in the Responsiveness Summary
C).
The selected remedy has not been significantly modified from that p
Proposed Plan.
X.
THE SELECTED REMEDY
The selected remedy (Alternative 4) is comprehensive in that it provides
and management of migration, and it also contributes to the overall atta
objectives.
The components of this alternative involve:
In situ SVE treatment of source area soil contaminated at con
exceeding cleanup goals; and treatment of extracted soil vapo
of volatilized organics.
Construction of an asphaltic concrete cap to minimize rainfal
infiltration into the area of SVE treatment. The cap will he
moisture content of the soil to be treated by SVE.
MK01\RPT:00628026.003\site8rod.txt
09/16/94
Recovery and off-base disposal of free-phase product floating
table in the source area.
Management of migration in the downgradient overburden waterzone. The groundwater recovery system will be designed to ca
phase contaminant overburden groundwater that is contaminated
cleanup goals, and to prevent migration of contaminated groun
bedrock water-bearing zone.
Construction of an on-site GWTP for long-term treatment of re
groundwater.
trenches.
Treated groundwater will be discharged to subsu
Environmental monitoring, such as groundwater sampling, groun
elevation monitoring, surface water (including wetlands) moni
contamination monitoring, during remedial operations.
Long-term environmental monitoring, including groundwater, su
and sediment sampling and analysis.
Figure 14 is a schematic diagram of the remedial processes employed in A
Institutional controls will be implemented in the same manner as for Alt
described in the Draft Final Site 8 FS Report (G-611).
Site access rest
restrictions will remain in-place until sampling and analysis confirmed
had eliminated the need for restrictions.
Environmental monitoring also
implemented as described in Appendix G of the Draft Final Site 8 FS Repo
Soil Vagor Extraction of Source Area Soil
SVE will be implemented in Site 8 vadose zone soil that has contaminant
that exceed cleanup goals.
Most of the soil contaminated in excess of c
the vicinity of the water table, at approximately 21 to 25 ft BGS, and i
floating free-phase product, or is smeared with product constituents as
water table fluctuations.
Soil cleanup goals also are exceeded in the 0
in areas of Site 8 where contaminants were discharged at the ground surf
MK01\RPT:00628026.003\site8rod.txt
09/19/9
<IMG SRC 0194093N>
SVE removes volatile contaminants from the subsurface by mechanically dr
through the pore spaces of the vadose zone soil.
The increased flow of
pores enhances volatilization of organic compounds and results in moveme
vapors through the soil to extraction vents.
The extraction vents are c
blower system that draws the contaminant-laden airstream to the surface.
typically treated for removal of contaminants prior to discharge to the
SVE has several advantages over other available technologies for remedia
contaminated soil:
SVE is an in situ method that has the potential for treating
soil at reasonable costs in comparison to other available tec
SVE systems are relatively easy to install and use standard,
equipment. This allows for rapid mobilization and implementa
remedial actions.
SVE systems are generally relatively simple in design.
A pilot-scale SVE treatability study was conducted at Site 8 during Apri
1993.
The results of the study indicate that SVE will be effective in r
zone soil at Site 8 that is contaminated at concentrations that exceed c
objectives of the treatability study included:
Determination of whether soil deeper than 15 ft BGS has suffi
permeability to allow enhanced movement of contaminant-laden
the extraction vents.
Collection of site-specific data to estimate the rate at whic
contaminants from the subsurface.
Determination of the types of organic contaminants that SVE w
from the subsurface at Site 8.
Collection of site-specific data necessary to evaluate the im
cost of SVE at Site 8.
MK01\RPT:00628026.003\site8rod.txt
09/16/94
Typical SVE systems consist of an array of vents in the area of the unsa
zone requiring remediation.
These vents are manifolded to blowers or va
Valves connected to each pipe provide the flexibility to withdraw air fr
at different air flow rates.
Extracted soil vapors are normally pretreated prior to passing through b
emission control systems.
Water droplets and particulate matter are rem
decreasing the velocity of the vapor stream in air/water separators.
Th
air/water separator passes through a filter, blower or vacuum pump, and
treatment unit prior to discharge to the atmosphere.
The air emissions
system will be treated to comply with NHDES regulations.
The final design of a full-scale SVE system for Site 8 will be based on
conducted at the site.
The system will consist of SVE vents; passive ai
manifold, blower, and air emission control systems.
A low-permeability cap, constructed of asphaltic concrete, will be place
be treated by SVE, excluding the area within the Newington Town Forest.
of the capping scenario using a numerical model calibrated to conditions
that the cap will result in a lowering of the water table in the soil to
approximately 12 to 18 inches.
This will allow the SVE system to provid
in the smear zone that would have otherwise been below the water table.
generated by the asphalt cap will be controlled by detention basins, swa
surface drainage structures as shown in Figure 15.
Operational monitoring of the SVE system will include monthly sampling a
vapor extracted from the subsurface by the SVE system.
The relative con
VOCs in the vapor will be measured with a photoionization detector (e.g.
ionization detector (eg., OVA) and recorded.
If the concentration of VO
decreases to nondetectable levels, or if the concentration stabilizes at
soil samples in the contaminated areas will be collected and analyzed fo
MK01\RPT:00628026.003\site8rod.txt
09/19/9
<IMG SRC 0194093O>
sample analytical results indicate that cleanup goals have been achieved
remedial action to address soil contamination will be considered complet
concentrations in the soil are not below cleanup goals, additional remed
modification of the SVE system to enhance treatment will be considered.
the soil cleanup goals will be achieved within 5 years based on the esti
contamination and the estimated vapor extraction rates.
Recovery and Off-Base Disposal of Free-Phase Product
Recovery of free-phase product from source area wells will be implemente
manner as for Alternative 3, as described in the Draft Final Site 8 FS R
Passive air supply vents screened through a product layer and the water
as wells for product extraction.
Product would be recovered from all pa
floating product layers thick enough for skimming or dual-phase pumping.
of dual-phase or skimmer pumps will be the same as discussed for Alterna
described in the Draft Final Site 8 FS Report (G-611).
Oil/water separa
product storage, and off-base product disposal will be implemented as di
for Alternative 3.
Groundwater/floating free-phase product recovery tre
installed downgradient of the free-phase product plume as a contingency
trenches would only be installed in the unlikely event that free-phase p
migrate away from the source area as a result of operation of the SVE sy
phase product will be monitored with monitor wells.
If free-phase produ
monitor wells, the recovery trenches will be installed to intercept floa
Management of Migration in the Downgradient Overburden Water-Bearing Zon
The management of migration component of this alternative will involve t
overburden groundwater outside the source area that contains contaminant
that exceed cleanup goals.
Groundwater extraction and subsequent treatm
minimize further migration of the dissolved-phase contaminant plume in t
overburden water-bearing zone.
The overburden wells that will be used f
MK01\RPT:00628026.003\site8rod.txt
be in the vicinity of wells 562A and 566.
09/19/94
The locations of these wells
Figure 16.
The design of the management of migration groundwater extraction system
using a three-dimensional groundwater flow model incorporating data from
Site 8 RI Report (G-577) and performance data from the on-site GWTP.
The overburden recovery wells are located upgradient of the zone where c
overburden groundwater appears to migrate to the bedrock water-bearing z
hydrologic connection between the overburden and bedrock water-bearing z
is discussed in Subsection 1.6.2.2 of the Draft Final Site 8 FS Report (
the management of migration groundwater recovery system for this alterna
designed to prevent migration of contaminated groundwater to the bedrock
zone.
Following implementation of this alternative, and the subsequent
source of dissolved-phase contaminant migration to the bedrock water-bea
contaminants present in excess of cleanup goals in the bedrock water-bea
attenuate naturally.
The Air Force will verify through the submittal of
evaluations and 5-year reviews to EPA and NHDES that the cleanup of the
bedrock zones, is progressing.
If the data indicate that the cleanup of
not progressing, then the Air Force will implement a bedrock groundwater
Groundwater Treatment
Groundwater will be treated by a new GWTP to be constructed at Site 8.
possible, the new GWTP will use equipment from the pilot GWTP.
The trea
processes employed at the GWTP will be chemical precipitation, filtratio
activated carbon adsorption.
A schematic diagram of the GWTP is present
Dissolved-phase contaminants designated for remedial action at Site 8 co
SVOCs, metals, and pesticides.
MK01\RPT:00628026.003\site8rod.txt
<IMG SRC 0194093P>
<IMG SRC 0194093Q>
GWTP Metals Removal
09/19/
Metals removal from the GWTP influent is required to prevent fouling of
stripping and carbon adsorption units.
Iron and manganese concentration
and 0.5 mg/L, respectively, are required for optimal operating condition
precipitation and coagulation followed by filtration will continue to be
removal prior to air stripping.
Sludge will be pumped from the bottom of the clarifier to a holding tank
Supernatant from the thickener will be routed to the influent holding ta
Thickened sludge will be dewatered in a filter press.
The sludge will t
and manganese hydroxides and is expected to pass TCLP testing; however,
would be analyzed for hazardous levels of inorganics and organics as spe
Sludge will be disposed of off base in accordance with federal and state
Clarifier effluent will be routed through filters for removal of suspend
settle in the clarifier.
These unit processes will reduce metals concentrations in the extracted
discharge criteria.
Some organics also may be removed during chemical p
filtration.
GWTP Organics Removal
Organics will be removed from the GWTP process water stream via air stri
activated carbon adsorption.
Air stripping is a relatively inexpensive,
of removing VOCs from the aqueous phase.
The air stripping unit will co
containing plastic packing media or will consist of a stack of aerated t
is expected to remove 97% to greater than 99% of VOCs from the contamina
groundwater.
Pease AFB has approval from the NHDES Division of Air Reso
VOCs from the existing Site 8 pilot GWTP air stripper without treatment.
conversations with NHDES, it is assumed that for long-term operation of
MK01\RPT:00628026.003\site8rod.txt
09/1
stripper emissions will not require treatment prior to discharge to the
still comply with federal and state ARARs.
However, final determination
air emissions control will be made by NHDES during remedial design.
Liquid-phase activated carbon adsorption will continue to be employed fo
levels of contaminants not removed from the groundwater by air stripping
adsorption is effective for removal of a wide variety of contaminants, i
nonvolatile organic compounds, such as chlorinated hydrocarbons, AHCs, P
neutral acid-extractable compounds (BNAs), pesticides, and PCBs, all of
present in the GWTP process water.
For the conceptual GWTP design included in the FS, the option of replaci
organics removal processes (i.e., air stripping and carbon adsorption) w
(UV)/chemical oxidation was investigated.
Based on the analysis present
J of the Draft Final Site 8 FS Report (G-611), treatment by air strippin
adsorption will be more cost effective than UV/chemical oxidation.
Grou
options will be re-evaluated in greater detail during the remedial desig
project.
The technologies that best meet the GWTP design criteria (incl
removal rates, reliability of available equipment, and cost effectivenes
GWTP Effluent Disposal
During operation of the SVE system, most of the GWTP effluent will not b
the four existing recharge trenches located to the south and west of the
Instead, most of the treated effluent will be discharged to recharge tre
to the west or to the north of the site.
This process will avoid raisin
source area and, thus, will maximize the volume of soil exposed to treat
Discharge of a limited volume of effluent to the trenches located to the
be continued to maintain a hydraulic barrier, blocking southward migrati
contamination.
On-site groundwater level monitoring during operation of
will be used to determine the optimum distribution of GWTP effluent.
MK01\RPT:00628026.003\site8rod.txt
09/1
Effluent from the GWTP will comply with NHDES standards for reinjection
Effluent will be monitored periodically to ensure compliance with these
A.
Methodology for Cleanup Level Determination
Cleanup levels have been selected for each medium of concern at Site 8.
have been established for chemicals of concern identified in the risk as
the Draft Final Site 8 RI Report (G-577) and for contaminants detected a
ARARs, risk-based concentrations, or leaching-based concentrations.
The approach used to determine risk-based concentrations is consistent w
used to evaluate both human health and ecological risks in the risk asse
the Draft Final Site 8 RI Report (G-577).
This approach is presented in
Generation of Baseline Risk Assessments for Pease Air Force Base (G-568)
Risk-based concentrations were derived for the chemicals of concern in s
groundwater based on the RME (current or future) for the medium.
The ch
concern include those substances that were identified as chemicals of co
assessment section of the Draft Final Site 8 RI Report (G-577).
In addi
concentrations were derived for a few chemicals that were not selected a
concern in the risk assessment, but whose maximum reported concentration
or more ARAR.
Risk-based concentrations were derived for each noncarcinogenic chemical
based on a goal of a hazard index of 1.
For each carcinogenic chemical,
were derived based on a goal of 10-6 (1-in-1 million) lifetime cancer ri
exceptions.
Some chemicals, although categorized by EPA as carcinogens,
considered to be carcinogenic through all exposure routes.
For example,
including cadmium, chromium VI, and nickel, are not classified as carcin
oral exposure route.
Therefore, in deriving risk-based concentrations f
if a carcinogenic chemical was not considered to be carcinogenic through
MK01\RPT:00628026.003\site8rod.txt
09/19/
exposure routes, the risk-based concentration for the chemical was based
of 1 (i.e., noncarcinogenic risk).
Ecological risk-based concentrations were calculated for chemicals of co
(0 to 2 ft BGS) at Site 8.
These concentrations were based on the maxim
ecological receptor to ensure that the concentrations are protective of
that can be evaluated.
Ecological risk-based concentrations for surface
were evaluated using AWQC and NOAA ERÄÄL values, respectively.
Cleanup levels were selected after comparing maximum contaminant concent
detected for each chemical of concern in each medium with appropriate ch
ARARs, human health risk-based concentrations, and, if applicable, ecolo
concentrations.
In general, where ARARs were available and deemed appropriate, the ARARs
selected as cleanup levels.
Where ARARs were not available, or if the b
ARAR was established was not consistent with Site 8 exposure scenarios,
concentration was selected as the cleanup goal.
When ARARs were selecte
goal, a human health risk was calculated for the ARAR concentration.
Cl
not established for chemicals detected at maximum concentrations that we
appropriate ARARs or risk-based concentrations.
Cleanup levels for the various contaminated media at Site 8 are summariz
subsections that follow.
B.
Soil Cleanup Goals
Cleanup goals for soil at Site 8 were determined based on an evaluation
The results of the human health risk assessment of source are
maximum depth of 15 ft BGS.
MK01\RPT:00628026.003\site8rod.txt
09/19/9
The results of the ecological risk assessment of source area
0 to 2 ft BGS.
The leaching potential of organic soil contaminants as determ
application of the Summers Model.
The leaching potential of inorganic contaminants as inferred
qualitative review of the distribution of inorganic contamina
groundwater at Site 8.
Available soil ARARs.
The results of the human health risk assessment indicated that for both
use soil exposure scenarios, total lifetime cancer risks did not exceed
range of 10-6 to 10-4, and total hazard indices did not exceed EPA's act
Therefore, reduction of human health risks resulting from the soil expos
considered an RAO.
The results of the ecological risk assessment for surface soil (0 to 2 f
indicated that the average cumulative hazard index for the deer mouse wa
the majority of the hazard index attributable to lead.
The ecological r
revealed that site soil contaminants posed ecological risks exceeding EP
The majority of the potential risk (90%) is attributable to lead exposur
One of the key assumptions used throughout the calculation of risks was
the deer mouse is continuously exposed to the maximum concentration obse
However, lead concentrations at Site 8 slightly exceeded the background
(65 mg/kg) for only two of 12 samples.
It is more realistic to examine
based on average lead concentrations in soil.
was well below background lead concentrations.
The average lead concentr
As indicated in the prev
and coupled with more realistic assumptions used in the calculation of p
risk, remediation of surface soils to background levels at Site 8 to red
not warranted.
The potential for soil contaminants to leach to groundwater resulting in
contaminant concentrations that exceed cleanup goals is the predominant
MK01\RPT:00628026.003\site8rod.txt
09/19/
cleanup of Site 8 soil. Since human health and ecological risks from si
reducing the leaching of contaminants to groundwater, thereby reducing t
risks resulting from the groundwater exposure pathway, represents the mo
for site soil.
The leaching potential of organic contaminants was evaluated quantitativ
Summers Model, as described in Subsection 2.5 of the Draft Final Site 8
Because the leaching of inorganic contaminants is more complex than the
organic contaminants owing to speciation, pH sensitivity, and oxidation/
the leaching potential of inorganic contaminants was qualitatively evalu
the distribution of inorganic contaminants in both soil and groundwater
Based on a qualitative evaluation of the distribution of metals in soil
does not appear to be a correlation between site-related soil contaminat
concentrations in groundwater that exceed MCLs.
criteria used for this qualitative evaluation.
Table 34 provides a sum
Possible exceptions are
have been detected at concentrations that exceed MCLs in Site 8 monitor
free-phase product.
These high concentrations of lead are likely a resu
this metal from the free-phase product rather than leaching from soil.
concentrations of arsenic in groundwater is likely indicative of the red
groundwater at Site 8.
Biological activity has depleted oxygen levels i
resulting in the reduction of metal oxides of iron, manganese, and arsen
occurring soil to metal species that are more soluble and more mobile in
Soil ARARs that may be relevant to Site 8 soil include RCRA Corrective A
the State of New Hampshire Interim Policy for the Management of Soils Co
Spills/Releases of Virgin Petroleum Products.
The RCRA Corrective Action Levels were developed based on human health r
from ingestion of soil in a residential exposure scenario.
Because the
Site 8 involves incidental ingestion of, and dermal contact with, contam
MK01\RPT:00628026.003\site8rod.txt
09/19
industrial exposure scenario, the RCRA levels are not consistent with th
scenarios.
Therefore, more emphasis has been placed on the results of t
risk assessment at Site 8 than on a comparison of site soil concentratio
Corrective Action Levels.
The New Hampshire Interim Policy for Spills/Releases of Virgin Petroleum
provides a cleanup goal of 1.0 mg/kg for total BTEX.
oils or solvents, which are also present at Site 8.
However, it does n
The cleanup goals p
were developed using a generalized leaching model assuming subsurface co
considered typical in the State of New Hampshire.
Table 35 provides a comparison of maximum detected concentrations of org
ARARs and target levels based on leaching potential.
The list of chemic
table includes the organic chemicals that have been selected as soil che
and/or contaminants that were detected in both soil and groundwater.
Cl
organics in soil were established if the maximum concentration detected
exceeded either the State of New Hampshire ARAR for BTEX or the target l
on leaching potential for all other organic contaminants.
The RCRA Corrective Action Levels were not selected as cleanup goals bec
8 exposure scenarios are not consistent with the exposure scenario used
RCRA levels.
The human health risk assessment prepared for soil at Site 8 evaluated d
interval of 0 to 15 ft BGS.
Human receptors were assumed not to come in
soil at depths greater than 15 ft BGS.
However, three remedial alternat
excavation and remediation of soil below 15 ft BGS to address the leachi
contaminants.
ft BGS.
After treatment, this soil may be replaced on-site at dep
To ensure that the cleanup goals for organic contaminants based
potential are also protective of human health, the cancer risks and haza
concentrations at the 0 to 15 ft BGS interval were calculated and are pr
MK01\RPT:00628026.003\site8rod.txt
09/19
The methodology for calculation of these risk and hazard indices is pres
L of the Draft Final Site 8 FS Report (G-611).
Because a risk assessment was not performed for soil deeper than 15 ft B
cleanup goals were not established for inorganics based on leaching pote
inorganic cleanup goals based on human health risks has been developed f
greater than 15 ft BGS.
These cleanup goals are intended for implementa
that would be excavated from depths greater than 15 ft BGS and replaced
at depths of less than 15 ft BGS after treatment.
These concentrations
lifetime cancer risk of 10-6 and a hazard index of 1 for each individual
methodology for calculation of these concentrations is presented in Subs
Draft Final Site 8 FS Report (G-611).
Although ecological risks were not considered severe enough to warrant r
ecological risk-based concentrations for soil were calculated and presen
of the Draft Final Site 8 FS Report (G-611).
index of 10 for ecological receptors.
These concentrations are b
Although they were not used to es
goals, the ecological risk-based concentrations for soil contaminants pr
of the Draft Final Site 8 FS Report (G-611) would be considered if soil
than 2 ft BGS are excavated for treatment.
Soil with contaminant concen
than the ecological risk-based concentrations would not be placed in the
interval.
A summary of the cleanup goals established for soil at Site 8
Table 35.
C.
Sediment Cleanup Goals
The human health risk assessment for sediment in Knights and Pickering B
that the total lifetime cancer risks did not exceed 10-6 and the total h
exceed 0.01.
Both the human health cancer risks and hazard indices are,
EPA action levels.
MK01\RPT:00628026.003\site8rod.txt
09/19/94
The ecological risk assessment indicated a cumulative mean hazard index
Brook and 10 for Knights Brook.
The contaminants that contributed 93% o
index for Pickering Brook sediments were the pesticides DDD, DDE, and DD
93%, only one sampling station (8024) contributed the greatest amount to
hazard index.
The majority (75%) of the cumulative mean hazard index fo
was contributed by acenaphthene and mercury.
Mercury and acenaphthene w
in only one of the Knights Brook sediment sampling locations.
Therefore
frequency of detections of pesticides in Pickering Brook and mercury and
Knights Brook, potential risks posed to ecological receptors from sedime
remediation.
Based on the preceding information, RAOs for Site 8 do not include reduc
from the sediment exposure pathway.
Therefore, cleanup goals for sedime
necessary and have not been established.
D.
Surface Water Cleanup Goals
The human health and ecological risk assessments for surface water in Kn
Pickering Brooks did not reveal exposures that resulted in unacceptable
ecological receptors.
Total lifetime cancer risks for human receptors d
and total hazard indices did not exceed 10-2.
Both the human health can
indices are, therefore, below EPA action levels.
The cumulative chronic
average contaminant concentrations in Pickering Brook was 65.9, with 78%
aluminum.
Iron contributed 12.2% and lead contributed 10% to the averag
The major contributor to ecologigal risk to surface water (i.e., aluminu
only one surface water sampling location (8027) in exceedance of chronic
Quality Criteria.
(8027).
In addition, lead was detected in only one surface wa
A cumulative chronic hazard index for average contaminant conce
calculated to be 2.81 for Knights Brook.
However, this hazard index was
contaminant concentrations detected in various springs in the vicinity o
not found in Knights Brook itself.
Aluminum, which was detected above c
MK01\RPT:00628026.003\site8rod.txt
09/19/9
Water Quality Criteria in only two springs, contributed 65% to the cumul
Issues identified in the preceding discussion indicate that surface wate
Pickering and Knights Brooks are not extensive and do not warrant remedi
Force will monitor surface water quality in Pickering and Knights Brooks
remedial action for Site 8.
The remedial action for Site 8 also will co
groundwater regulation Env-Ws 410.03c.
In summary, none of the surface water results evaluated for Site 8 showe
risks or were above background concentrations.
As a result, cleanup goa
established for surface water.
E.
Groundwater Cleanup Goals
The methodology used to select cleanup goals for groundwater contaminati
the same as that used to select groundwater target levels for input into
(see Subsection 2.5 of the Draft Final Site 8 FS Report) (G-611).
Howev
groundwater contaminants that were evaluated for establishment of ground
goals was limited to groundwater chemicals of concern plus groundwater c
exceed MCLs.
Tables 36 and 37 present the maximum detected concentratio
contaminants in Site 8 groundwater, ARARs, risk-based concentrations, th
selecting the cleanup goals, and the cleanup goals established for each
37 also includes the background concentrations for soluble metals.
Thes
concentrations were established as groundwater cleanup goals when they w
ARARs or risk-based concentrations.
Table 38 presents the risks to huma
presented by the groundwater exposure scenarios, as presented in Subsect
Draft Final Site 8 FS Report (G-611), for groundwater containing a conta
concentration equivalent to the ARARs presented in Tables 36 and 37.
Ta
also provide a summary of the cleanup goals selected for groundwater.
MK01\RPT:00628026.003\site8rod.txt
09/19/94
XI.
STATUTORY DETERMINATION
The remedial action selected for implementation at Site 8 is consistent
the NCP.
The selected remedy is protective of human health and the envi
ARARs, and is cost effective.
The selected remedy also satisfies the st
for treatment that permanently and significantly reduces the TMV of haza
as a principal element.
Additionly, the selected remedy uses alternativ
technologies or resource recovery technologies to the maximum extent pra
A.
Protection of Human Health and the Environment
The remedy at the site will permanently reduce the risks posed to human
environment by eliminating, reducing, or controlling exposures to human
receptors through treatment and by engineering controls.
Specifically,
employs in situ SVE of source area soil to remediate soil contaminated a
This will involve extraction of VOCs from the soil.
destruction of VOCs.
The vapors extracte
Volatilization of the VOC-contaminated soil also w
threat of exposure to the most mobile contaminants through direct contac
of, contaminated soil.
The current risks associated with ingestion and
soil requiring remediation currently fall within the target range of 10soil contaminants into the groundwater, however, may result in exceedanc
cleanup goals, which could result in increased risks associated with the
exposure pathways.
EPA regulates maximum risk at hazardous waste sites
acceptable risk level within this range.
Treating the soil by in situ S
to within the range of acceptable exposure levels and also reduce leachi
into the groundwater to within acceptable levels.
By capping the site t
into the area of soil vapor treatment, the risks of exposure through dir
further reduced.
The current risks posed by groundwater exceed EPA's ta
range of 10-6 to 10-4.
By extracting and treating groundwater from the
posed by the groundwater will be gradually reduced to an acceptable leve
MK01\RPT:00628026.003\site8rod.txt
09/19
short-term risks associated with the selected remedy that cannot be read
addition, no adverse cross-media impacts are expected from the remedy.
B.
Compliance with ARARs
The selected remedy of in situ SVE of source area soil, recovery and off
free-phase product, groundwater extraction and on-site treatment and rec
institutional controls will attain all of the substantive, nonprocedural
and state ARARs.
ARARs for the Site 8 selected remedy are presented in
which contains a complete list of ARARs, induding the regulatory citatio
of the requirement, and the action to be taken to attain the requirement
ARARs for the purpose of this action, the Air Force will comply with OSH
Rule, and all state and federal requirements governing management of was
generated at the site.
In addidon, policies, criteria, and guidelines t
(TBC) also will be considered during the implementation of the remedial
ARARs are presented as follows:
Chemical-Specific ARARs.
-
Federal ÄÄ SDWA, Maximum Contaminant Levels.
-
State ÄÄ NH Admin. Code Env-Ws 410 Health-Based Groundwa
Protection Standards.
Location-Specific ARARs.
-
National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 [36 CFR Part
106 and 110 (f)].
-
Floodplains Executive Order (EO 11888).
-
Wetlands Executive Order (EO 11990).
-
Federal ÄÄ CWA404, Section 404(b)(i), Guidelines for Spe
Disposal Sites for Dredged or Fill Material.
-
FederalÄÄ16 USC 661 et. seq., Fish and Wildlife Coordina
MK01\RPT:00628026.003\site8rod.txt
-
09/1
State ÄÄ RSA 485:A-17, NH Admin. in Code Env-Ws 415, Rul
to Prevention of Pollution from Dredging, Filing, Mining
and Construction.
-
State ÄÄ RSA 482:A, NH Admin. Code Env-Wt 300, 400, and
Hampshire Criteria and Conditions for Fill and Dredging
Action-Specific ARARs.
-
Federal RCRA ARARs will be relevant and appropriate and
effect through state hazardous waste requirements, which
lieu of direct federal regulations. Appendix A provides
requirements.
-
Federal ÄÄ RCRA, 40 CFR 264.90 through 264.101 (Subpart
Releases from Solid Waste Management Units.
-
Federal ÄÄ HSWA, Amendments to RCRA, 40 CFR Part 268, La
Disposal Restrictions.
-
State ÄÄ NH Admin. Code Env-Wm 351 through 353, 701 thro
707, 708, and 709, Standards for Owners and Operators of
Waste Facilities.
-
State ÄÄ NH Admin. Code Env-Wm 702.10 through 702.14, Mo
of Hazardous Waste Treatment Facilities.
-
State ÄÄ NH Admin. Code Env-Wm 707.03, Waste Pile Requir
-
State ÄÄ NH Admin. Code Env-Wm 500, Standards for Genera
-
State ÄÄ NH Admin. Code Env-Wm 600, Requirements for Haz
Waste Transporters.
-
State ÄÄ NH Admin. Code-Wm 507.03 and 603.05, Packaging
Labeling Requirements.
-
State ÄÄ NH Admin. Code Env-Wm 510, 511, 604, 703, and 5
Manifesting Requirements.
-
State ÄÄ NH Admin. Code Env-Ws 412, Reporting and Remedi
Oil Discharges.
-
Federal ÄÄ DOT, 49 CFR Parts 107 and 171 through 179, De
of Tranportation Regulations for Transport of Hazardous
MK01\RPT:00628026.003\site8rod.txt
09/19/94
-
State ÄÄ NH Admin. Code Saf-C-600, NH Department of Safe
for Transport of Hazardous Materials.
-
Federal ÄÄ RCRA 40 CFR Part 264, Subpart AA.
-
Federal ÄÄ RCRA 40 CFR Part 264, Subpart BB.
-
Federal ÄÄ CAA, National Emission Standards for Hazardou
Pollutants (NESHAP).
-
Federal ÄÄ CAA, 40 CFR 50, National Ambient Air Quality
(NAAQS).
-
Federal ÄÄ RCRA, 40 CFR 264.251(j)(Subpart L) and 264.30
N).
-
State ÄÄ NH Admin. Code Env-A 800, Testing and Monitorin
Procedures.
-
State ÄÄ NH Admin. Code Env-1002, Fugitive Dust Control.
-
State ÄÄ NH Admin. Code Env-A 1300, Toxic Air Pollutants
-
State ÄÄ NH Admin. Code Env-A 300, Ambient Air Quality S
TBC Criteria.
-
OSWER Directive 9834.11, 13 November 1987.
-
State ÄÄ NH Admin. Code Env-A 1024, Control of VOC Emiss
-
State ÄÄ NH Guidance Document Interim Policy for the Man
of Soils Contaminated from the Spills/Releases of Virgin
Products.
The basewide ARARs document (G-614) identifies ARARs for Pease AFB, and
A identifies those ARARs for the selected remedy for Site 8.
C.
Cost Effectiveness
The selected remedy is cost effective because it will provide overall ef
proportional to its costs, the net present-worth value being $13,374,971
MK01\RPT:00628026.003\site8rod.txt
09/19/9
of the selected remedy is an order of magnitude lower than that of Alter
significantly lower than the excavation alternatives (Alternatives 6 thr
selected remedy ensures a much higher degree of certainty that the remed
in the long run as a result of significant reduction of the toxicity and
contaminants achieved through in situ SVE of VOCs, recovery and off-base
phase product, and groundwater extraction and treatment.
A summary of the costs associated with each remedial alternative is pres
All costs are presented in net present-worth costs.
30-Year
PresentCost
Present-Worth
Remedial Alternative
Cost
Capital Cost
Worth O&
1. No Action/Access Restrictions and Institutional Controls
$1,340,000.
(fencing, deed restrictions, monitoring, and extension of
public water supply).
2. Management of Dissolved-Phase Contaminant Migration
$6,635,000.
in the Overburden and Bedrock Water-Bearing Zones, OnSite Treatment of Recovered Groundwater, Discharge of
Treated Groundwater to Subsurface Recharge Trenches, and
Institutional Controls.
$313
$1,189,
3. Downgradient Groundwater Recovery Trench to
$7,846,000.
Minimize Off-Site Contaminant Migration, Recovery and
Off-Site Disposal of Free-Phase Product, Management of
Dissolved-Phase Contaminant Migration in the Overburden
and Bedrock Water-Bearing Zones, On-Site Treatment of
Recovered Groundwater, Discharge of Treated Groundwater
to Subsurface Recharge Trenches, and Institutional Controls.
$1,830,300.
4. In Situ Soil Vapor Extraction of Source Area Soil,
$13,374,971.
Recovery and Off-Site Disposal of Free-Phase Product,
Management of Dissolved-Phase Contaminant Migration in
the Overburden Water-Bearing Zone, On-Site Treatment of
Recovered Groundwater, Discharge of Treated Groundwater
to Subsurface Recharge Trenches, and Institutional Controls.
$7,257,596.
5. In Situ Soil Vapor Extraction of Source Area Soil,
$13,890,000.
Recovery and Off-Site Disposal of Free-Phase Product,
Management of Dissolved-Phase Contaminant Migration in
Overburden and Bedrock Water-Bearing Zones, On-Site
Treatment of Recovered Groundwater, Discharge of Treated
Groundwater to Subsurface Recharge Trenches, and
Institutional Controls.
$5,720,000.
6. Excavation and Ex Situ Biological/Vapor Extraction
$25,306,000.
Treatment of Burn Area Soil Contaminated Above Cleanup
Goals, Dewatering of Open Excavation, Recovery and OffSite Disposal of Free-Phase Product, In Situ Soil Vapor
Extraction of Migrating Free-Phase Product Area Soil,
Management of Dissolved-Phase Contaminant Migration in
Overburden and Bedrock Water-Bearing Zones, On-Site
Treatment of Recovered Groundwater, Discharge of Treated
Groundwater to Subsurface Recharge Trenches, and
Institutional Controls.
$18,430,300.
MK01\RPT:00628026.003\site8rod.txt
09/19/94
30-Year
PresentCost
Present-Worth
Remedial Alternative
Cost
Capital Cost
Worth O&
7. Excavation and On-Site Thermal Treatment of Burn Area
$33,362,000.
Soil Contaminated Above Cleanup Goals, Dewatering of the
Open Excavation, Recovery and Off-Site Disposal of FreePhase Product, In Situ Soil Vapor Extraction of Migrating
Free-Phase Product Area Soil, Management of DissolvedPhase Contaminant Migration in Overburden and Bedrock
Water-Bearing Zones, On-Site Treatment of Recovered
Groundwater, Discharge of Treated Groundwater to
Subsurface Recharge Trenches, and Institutional Controls.
8. Excavation and On-Site Thermal Treatment of All Soil
$40,674,000.
Contaminated Above Cleanup Goals, Dewatering of the
Open Excavation, Recovery and Off-Site Disposal of FreePhase Product, Management of Dissolved-Phase
Contaminant Migration in Overburden and Bedrock WaterBearing Zones, On-Site Treatment of Recovered
Groundwater, Discharge of Treated Groundwater to
Subsurface Recharge Trenches, and Institutional Controls.
$27,271,400.
$35,616,100.
Of the aforementioned alternatives, seven attain ARARs and are protectiv
2 through 8.
Alternative 4 is the most cost-effective alternative overa
degree of protectiveness proportional to its cost.
A summary of the cos
Alternative 4 (in net present-worth costs) is presented as follows:
Present-Worth
Component of Remedy
Cost
Source Area Cap
$140,000
Passive Air Supply Vents, SVE Vents, and Manifold System
LNAPL/Groundwater Recovery System
$
$285,000
Source Area Groundwater Treaatment/LNAPL Storage
$58,835
Management of Migration of Groundwater Recovery System
$21
Construction of New GWTP
$2,592,800
Miscellaneous
$1,613,398
O&M
$6,117,375
Total
$13,374,971
MK01\RPT:00628026.003\site8rod.txt
D.
09/19/94
Use of Permanent Solutions and Alternative Treatment or Resource Rec
Technologies to the Maximum Extent Practicable
EPA and the State of New Hampshire have determined that the selected rem
the maximum extent to which permanent solutions and treatment technologi
in a cost-effective manner for Site 8.
Of those alternatives that are p
health and the environment and comply with ARARs, EPA and NHDES have det
that the selected remedy provides the best balance of tradeoffs in terms
effectiveness and permanence, reduction in TMV of contaminants through t
term effectiveness, implementability, and cost, while considering the st
treatment as a principal element and considering state and community acc
The selected remedy does offer as relatively high a degree of long-term
permanence as do the excavation alternatives, and it will significantly
hazards posed by the contaminated soil through SVE of the VOCs and will
hazards posed by groundwater by extraction and treatment.
The hazard po
phase product would be removed by recovery and off-base disposal of the
product.
The selected remedy treats the principal threats posed by the soil, achi
VOCs reductions.
The implementability of the selected remedy is compara
nontreatment alternatives and significantly better than the excavation o
remedy also is the least costly in situ option and is less expensive tha
The selection of this remedy is consistent with program expectations tha
toxic and mobile wastes are a priority for treatment and that treatment
to ensure the long-term effectiveness of a remedy.
Since all in situ an
options are reasonably comparable with respect to long-term effectivenes
and mobility reductions achieved, the major tradeoffs that provide the b
decision are short-term effectiveness, implementability, and cost.
The
be implemented more quickly, with less difficulty, and at less cost than
excavation treatment alternatives and, therefore, is the most appropriat
MK01\RPT:00628026.003\site8rod.txt
E.
Preference for Treatment as a Principal Element
09/19
By treating the VOC-contaminated soil by in Situ SVE and pumping and tre
contaminated groundwater, the selected remedy addresses the principal th
site through the use of treatment technologies.
destroyed.
VOCs extracted from the
Therefore, the statutory preference for remedies that employ
principal element is satisfied.
XII.
DOCUMENTATION OF SIGNIFICANT CHANGES
The Air Force presented a Proposed Plan (Alternative 4) for remediation
January 1994 (G-679).
The components of the preferred alternative inclu
In situ SVE of source area soil.
Construction of a cap.
Construction of groundwater/free-phase product recovery trenc
contingency.
Recovery and off-base disposal of free-phase product.
Management of migration in overburden groundwater.
Management of migration in bedrock groundwater as a contingen
Construction of an on-site GWTP for treatment of recovered gr
Environmental monitoring during remedial action.
Long-term monitoring.
There have been no significant changes in the selected alternative since
Draft Final Site 8 FS Report (G-611) and Proposed Plan (G-679).
It should be noted that several regulations have been updated and some a
enforceable, where they were not previously.
MK01\RPT:00628026.003\site8rod.txt
this ROD, have been added to Appendix A.
Regulatory updates, as of
09/19/94
Additionally, it has been dete
of the initial design work, that the use or upgrade of the existing GWTP
viable option.
XIII.
STATE ROLE
NHDES, as party to the FFA, has reviewed the various alternatives and ha
support for the selected remedy.
The State of New Hampshire has reviewe
Site 8 RI Report, including the baseline risk assessment, and the Draft
Report to determine whether the selected remedy is in compliance with AR
G-577).
The State of New Hampshire concurs with the selected remedy for
of the Declaration of Concurrence is attached as Appendix B.
MK01\RPT:00628026.003\site8rod.txt
09/19/94
REFERENCES
G-84
CH2M Hill.
NH.
1984.
G-93
Clauser, C. 1992.
73(21):236-238.
Installation Restoration Program Records Search
"Permeability of Crystalline Rocks."
G-112 Domenico, P.A. and F.W. Schwartz.
John Wiley & Sons, New York, NY.
1990.
BOS Tran
Physical and Chemical Hy
G-357 Little, A.D., Inc. 1989. The Installation Restoration Program To
Volumes 1 through 4. Oak Ridge National Laboratory.
G-377 Moore, R.B. 1982. "Calving Bays versus Ice Stagnation ÄÄ A Compa
for the Deglaciation of the Great Bay Region of New Hampshire." N
Geology, 4(1):39-45.
G-403 NHDES (New Hampshire Department Environmental Services). 1990. S
Water Quality Regulations. Water Supply and Pollution Control Div
G-415 NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration). 1990. "T
for Biological Effects of Sediment-Sorbed Contaminants Tested in t
Status and Trends Program." NOAA Technical Memorandum. NOS OMA 5
Seattle, WA.
G-417 Novotny, R.F. 1969. The Geology of the Seacoast Region. New Ham
Department of Resources and Economic Development, Concord, NH.
G-468 Smith, G.W. and L.E. Hunter. 1989. "Late Wisconsinan Deglaciatio
Maine." In: Studies in Maine Geology ÄÄ Volume 6: Quaternary Ge
and R.G. Marvinney (eds.). Maine Geological Survey. pp. 13-32.
G-491 Thompson, W.B. 1979.
Geological Survey.
Surficial Geology Handbook for Coastal Main
G-493 Thompson, W.B., KJ. Crossen, H.W. Borns, Jr., and B.G. Andersen.
"Glaciomarine Deltas of Maine and Their Relation to Late Pleistoce
Crustal Movements." In: Neotectonics of Maine. W.A. Andersen an
Jr.(eds.).
Maine Geological Survey, Department of Conservation.
G-525 WESTON (Roy F. Weston, Inc.). 1986. Installation Restoration Pro
ÄÄ Confirmation/Quantification, Stage 1 Final Report, Pease AFB, N
MK01\RPT:00628026.003\site8rod.ref
09/19/9
REFERENCES
(Continued)
G-530 WESTON (Roy F. Weston, Inc.). 1988. Interim Technical Report No.
Installation Restoration Program Stage 2, Pease AFB, NH. February
G-531 WESTON (Roy F. Weston, Inc.). 1988. Interim Technical Report No.
Installation Restoration Program, Stage 2, Pease AFB, NH. August
G-533 WESTON (Roy F. Weston, Inc.). 1989.
Draft Final Report, Pease AFB, NH.
Installation Restoration Pro
G-536 WESTON (Roy F. Weston, Inc.). 1989. Interim Technical Report No.
Installation Restoration Program, Stage 2, Pease AFB, NH. Februar
G-537 WESTON (Roy F. Weston, Inc.). 1989. Interim Technical Report No.
Installation Restoration Program, Stage 2, Pease AFB, NH. April 1
G-552 WESTON (Roy F. Weston, Inc.). 1991. Installation Restoration Pro
IRP Site 8 Groundwater Treatment Plant. Pease AFB, NH.
G-563 WESTON (Roy F. Weston, Inc.). 1991. Installation Restoration Pro
Sampling and Analysis Plan for Pease AFB, NH. January 1991. Draf
G-568 WESTON (Roy F. Weston, Inc.). 1991.
Assessments for the Pease AFB Sites.
1991.
Protocols for Generation of
Roy F. Weston, Inc., West Ch
G-577 WESTON (Roy F. Weston, Inc.). 1992. Installation Restoration Pro
IRP Site 8 Draft Final Remedial Investigation, Pease AFB, NH, Nove
G-599 WESTON (Roy F. Weston, Inc.).
AFB, NH. 17 September 1992.
1992.
Off-Base Well Inventory Lett
G-603 WESTON (Roy F. Weston, Inc.).
Pease AFB, NH, Letter Report.
1992. Tolerance Limits for Backgro
17 April 1992.
G-609 WESTON (Roy F. Weston, Inc.). 1993. Background Values for Soil,
Surface Water, and Sediment at Pease Air force Base, Letter Report
G-611 WESTON (Roy F. Weston, Inc.). 1993. Installation Restoration Pro
IRP Site 8 Draft Final Feasibility Study, Pease AFB, NH. January
G-614 WESTON (Roy F. Weston, Inc.). 1993. Installation Restoration Pro
Basewide ARARs, Pease AFB, NH. January 1993.
MK01\RPT:00628026.003\site8rod.ref
09/19/94
REFERENCES
(Continued)
G-635 WESTON (Roy F. Weston, Inc.). 1993. Installation Restoration Pro
Zone 5 Draft Final Remedial Investigation, Pease AFB, NH. Septemb
G-679 WESTON (Roy F. Weston, Inc.). 1994. Installation Restoration Pro
Site 8 Draft Proposed Plan, Pease AFB, NH. January 1994.
G-680 WESTON (Roy F. Weston, Inc.). 1994. Site 8 Soil Vapor Extraction
at Pease AFB, NH. Letter Report. March 1994.
MK01\RPT:00628026.003\site8rod.ref
09/19/
LIST OF ACRONYMS
AALs
AFB
AFCEE/ERB
AHCs
ARAR
AWQC
BAT
BNAs
BTEX
CERCLA
CRD-1
CTV
DCA
DCE
DEQPPM
DOD
EDB
EPA
ERÄÄL
FDTA-2
FFA
FMS
FS
ft MSL
ft BGS
GC
GMZ
gpd
gpm
GT
GWTP
HA
HQ AFBCA
IRM
IRP
ITR
LNAPL
LS
MCL
MCLG
MCS
Ambient Air Limits
Air Force Base
Air Force Center for Environmental Excellence/Base Closure Di
aromatic hydrocarbons
Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirement
Ambient Water Quality Criteria
best available technology
base-neutral acid-extractable compounds
benzene, toluene, ethylbenzene, and xylenes
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liabi
Construction Rubble Dump 1
critical toxicity value
dichloroethane
dichloroethene
Defense Environmental Quality Program Policy Memorandum
Department of Defense
ethylene dibromide
Environmental Protection Agency
Biological Effects Range ÄÄ Low
Fire Department Training Area 2
Federal Facility Agreement
Field Maintenance Squadron
Feasibility Study
feet above mean sea level
feet below ground surface
gas chromatograph
Groundwater Management Zone
gallons per day
gallons per minute
Glacial Till
groundwater treatment plant
Health Advisory
Headquarters Air Force Base Conversion Agency
interim remedial measure
Installation Restoration Program
Interim Technical Report
light, nonaqueous-phase liquid
Lower Sand
Maximum Contaminant Level
Maximum Contaminant Level Goal
Marine Clay and Silt
MIBK
MOA
NAAQS
4-methyl-2-pentanone
Memorandum of Agreement
National Ambient Air Quality Standards
MK01\RPT:00628026.003\site8rod.acr
09/19/94
LIST OF ACRONYMS
(Continued)
NCP
NESHAP
NHANG
NHDES
NOAA
NPDES
NPL
o/w
O&M
OCDD
OEHL
OHC
PA
PAH
PCA
PCB
PCE
ppm
QAPP
RAO
RCRA
RfD
RI
RI/FSs
RME
ROD
SAP
SARA
SI
SVE
TBC
TCE
TCLP
TMV
TOC
TPH
TSD
TSDFs
US
USAFOEHL
USGS
UV
VOC
WESTON
National Contingency Plan
National Emission Standards for Hazardous Air Pollutants
New Hampshire Air National Guard
New Hampshire Department of Environmental Services
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
National Priorities List
oil/water
operation and maintenance
octachlorinated dibenzo-p-dioxin
Occupational and Environmental Health Laboratory
oxygenated hydrocarbon
Preliminary Assessment
polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbon
tetrachloroethane
polychlorinated biphenyl
tetrachloroethene
parts per million
Quality Assurance Project Plan
remedial action objective
Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
Risk Reference Dose
Remedial Investigation
Remedial Investigations and Feasibility Studies
most reasonable maximally exposed individual
Record of Decision
Sampling and Analysis Plan
Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act
Site Investigation
soil vapor extraction
to be considered
trichloroethene
Toxicity Characteristic Leaching Procedure
toxicity, mobility, or volume
total organic carbon
total petroleum hydrocarbon
transport, storage, and disposal
treatment, storage and disposal facilities
Upper Sand
U.S. Air Force Occupational and Environmental Health Laborato
U.S. Geological Survey
ultraviolet
volatile organic compound
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
MK01\RPT:00628026.003\site8rod.acr
09/19/94
APPENDIX A
ARARS FOR THE PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE
MK01\RPT:00628026.003\site8rod.apa
09/16/94
ARARs FOR ALTERNATIVE 4:
IN SITU SO
SOURCE AREA SOIL, RECOVERY AND
OFF-SITE DISPOSAL OF FREE-PH
DISSOLVED-PHASE
CONTAMINANT MIGRATION IN THE OVER
ZONE, ON-SITE TREATMENT
OF RECOVERED GROUNDWATER, D
GROUNDWATER TO
SUBSURFACE RECHARGE TREN
CONTROLS
SITE 8
Medium
Requirements
Requirement
Status
CHEMICAL-SPECIFIC
Groundwater
FEDERAL-SDWA-Maximum Contaminant
MCLs have bee
promulgated for a number of
MCLs were considered when
Rel
Levels (MCLs)
common organic and
inorganic contaminants.
selecting groundwater cleanup
Approp
(40 CFR 141.11-141.16)
These levels regul
contaminants in pulic
goals. Free-phase product
drinking water supplies,
but may also be
removal, groundwater extraction
considered relevant and
appropriate for
and treatment, institutional
groundwater aquifers
potentially used for
controls, and Groundwater
drinking water.
Groundwater
FEDERAL-SDWA-Maximum Contaminant
Non-zero
nonenforceable healthNon-zero MCLGs were considered
Relevant an
Level Goals (MCLGs) (40 CFR 141.50-141.51)
based goals f
systems. MCLGs
when selecting groundwater
Appropriate
are set at levels that
would result in no known
cleanup and treatment goals.
or expected adverse
health effects, with an
Free-phase product removal,
adequate margin of
safety.
groundwater extraction and
Groundwater
health-based standards
FEDERAL-EPA Health Advisories (HAs)
HAs were considered when
established for various
exposure durations, i.e.,
selecting groundwater cleanup
1-day, 10-day, and
lifetime.
goals as presented in Tables 2.6-3
HAs
MK01\RPT:00628026.003\site8rod.apa
09/16/94
ARARs FOR ALTERNATIVE 4:
IN SITU SO
SOURCE AREA SOIL, RECOVERY AND
OFF-SITE DISPOSAL OF FREE-PH
DISSOLVED-PHASE
CONTAMINANT MIGRATION IN THE OVER
ZONE, ON-SITE TREATMENT
OF RECOVERED GROUNDWATER, D
GROUNDWATER TO
SUBSURFACE RECHARGE TREN
CONTROLS
SITE 8
(Continued)
Medium
Requirements
Requirement
Status
Groundwater,
based on the
Soil
used to develop
FEDERAL-EPA Risk Reference Doses (RfDs)
RfDs
EPA RfDs have been used to
TBC
noncarcinogenic effects and
characterize risks resulting from
Hazard Indices. A
Hazard Index of less than
exposure to contaminants in
or equal to 1 is
considered acceptable.
groundwater because leaching from
Groundwater,
FEDERAL-EPA Carcinogen Assessment Group
Pote
by the EPA
EPA Carcinogenic Potency Factors
TBC
Soil
Potency Factors
from Health Effects Ass
evaluation
have been used to compute the
by the Carcinogenic
Assessment Group and are
individual incremental cancer risk
cancer risks.
used to develop excess
resulting from exposure to site
10-4 to 10-6 is
contamination in groundwater and
A range of
considered acceptable.
MK01\RPT:00628026.003\site8rod.apa
09/16/94
ARARs FOR ALTERNATIVE 4:
IN SITU SO
SOURCE AREA SOIL, RECOVERY AND
OFF-SITE DISPOSAL OF FREE-PH
DISSOLVED-PHASE
CONTAMINANT MIGRATION IN THE OVER
ZONE, ON-SITE TREATMENT
OF RECOVERED GROUNDWATER, D
GROUNDWATER TO
SUBSURFACE RECHARGE TREN
CONTROLS
SITE 8
(Continued)
Medium
Requirements
Requirement
Status
Groundwater STATE-NH Admin. Code, Env-Ws 410.05,
Allowable lim
Available MCLs, MCLGs, and
Applicable
Health-Based Groundwater Protection
gro
Hampshire
other health-based limits have
Standards
Division of Public Health
Services health-based
been used, as appropriate, to set
standards and federal
MCLs, MCLGs, and
cleanup goals for groundwater
othe
during remedial
in
LOCATION-SPECIFIC
Historic Places
National Historic Preservation Act of 1966
Requi
with jurisdiction
A Memorandum of Agreement
Applicable
over a federal, federally assiste
or federally
(MOA) between the Air Force and
licensed undertaking to
take in account the
the New Hampshire State Historic
effects of the agency's
undertakings on
Preservation Officer that covers
properties included in, or
eligible for, the
this issue will be signed.
National Register of
Historic Places and, prior
to approval of an
undertaking, to afford the
Advisory Council on
Historic Preservation a
reasonable opportunity to
comment on the
undertaking.
MK01\RPT:00628026.003\site8rod.apa
09/16/94
ARARs FOR ALTERNATIVE 4:
IN SITU SO
SOURCE AREA SOIL, RECOVERY AND
OFF-SITE DISPOSAL OF FREE-PH
DISSOLVED-PHASE
CONTAMINANT MIGRATION IN THE OVER
ZONE, ON-SITE TREATMENT
OF RECOVERED GROUNDWATER, D
GROUNDWATER TO
SUBSURFACE RECHARGE TREN
CONTROLS
SITE 8
(Continued)
Medium
Requirements
Requirement
Status
Wetlands
Wetlands Executive Order (EO 11990)
required
The remedial action will address
40 CFR Part 6, Appendix A
loss, or
impacts to identified wetlands.
Unde
TBC
to minimize the
degr
activities will minimize
wetl
extent
Wetlands
FEDERAL-CWA 404, Section 404 (b)(i),
No dredging or filling of wetlands
Applicable
Guidelines for Specification of Disposal Sites for
will occur under this alternative.
Dredged or Fill Material (40 CFR 230)
Remedial activities will be
Cont
dredge
or f
perm
the
minimize potential
adve
effects on the aquatic
that
appr
mini
aqua
Wetlands
FEDERAL-16 USC 661 et.seq., Fish and
Relevant federal and state agencies
Applicable
Wildlife Coordination Act
be contacted to help analyze
Requ
cons
proj
remedial action on
Requ
wetlands in and
Wild
and to develop
meas
prevent, mitigate, and
for
adverse impacts.
MK01\RPT:00628026.003\site8rod.apa
09/16/94
ARARs FOR ALTERNATIVE 4:
IN SITU SO
SOURCE AREA SOIL, RECOVERY AND
OFF-SITE DISPOSAL OF FREE-PH
DISSOLVED-PHASE
CONTAMINANT MIGRATION IN THE OVER
ZONE, ON-SITE TREATMENT
OF RECOVERED GROUNDWATER, D
GROUNDWATER TO
SUBSURFACE RECHARGE TREN
CONTROLS
SITE 8
(Continued)
Medium
Requirements
Requirement
Status
Wetlands,
any activity in
Rivers
significantly
STATE-RSA 485:A-17, NH Admin. Code EnvSource control and management of
Applicable
Ws 415, Rules Relative to Prevention of
migration treatment systems will
Pollution from Dredging, Filling, Mining,
affect
meet substantive requirements of
Transporting, and Construction
these NHDES rules as applicable
E
o
a
w
u
prior to initiation.
t
f
w
Wetlands,
activities in or
Rivers
STATE-RSA 482-A, NH Admin. Code Env-Wt
Proposed work adjacent to the
Applicable
300, 400, and 600, New Hampshire Criteria and
R
a
criteria for
wetlands will be reviewed by the
Conditions for Fill and Dredging in Wetlands
Wetlands Board and will comply
t
i
Wetlands Protection
r
Soil
New Hampshire RSA 217A, Native Plant
Endangered plants are not likely to
Applicable, if
Protection Act
location, but care will endangered plants
P
as
protect
e
are identified
Historic Places
National Historic Prevention Act of 1966 (16
preservation of
Remedial action must be
Applicable
USC 470 et seq.), Protection of Historic Land
and
coordinated with preservation
and Structures; Archeological and Historic
agencies and societies to minimize
Preservation Act of 1974; Historic Sites Building
properties,
loss of significant scientific,
and Antiquities Act
prehistorical, historical, or
Se
h
r
p
a
MK01\RPT:00628026.003\site8rod.apa
09/16/94
ARARs FOR ALTERNATIVE 4:
IN SITU SO
SOURCE AREA SOIL, RECOVERY AND
OFF-SITE DISPOSAL OF FREE-PH
DISSOLVED-PHASE
CONTAMINANT MIGRATION IN THE OVER
ZONE, ON-SITE TREATMENT
OF RECOVERED GROUNDWATER, D
GROUNDWATER TO
SUBSURFACE RECHARGE TREN
CONTROLS
SITE 8
(Continued)
Medium
Requirements
Requirement
Status
Historic Places
New Hampshire Historic Protection Act (RSA
Remedial actions will be
Applicable
227-C)
with preservation
Authori
local
histori
alterat
societies to minimize
propert
scientific,
ACTION-SPECIFIC
Hazardous
FEDERAL-RCRA 40 CFR Part 264
Management of hazardous waste as
Relevant and
Waste/Soil
CERCLA response must
appropriate. Has
RCRA Su
applica
disposa
substantive
effect through
hazardo
Subtitle C
state hazardous
waste requirewhich
in lieu of
federal
regulations.
See
discussion of these
requirements
Hazardous
FEDERAL-RCRA 40 CFR 264.90-264.101
General
groundwater
Groundwater monitoring and
Relevant and
Waste/Soil
(Subpart F), Releases from Solid Waste
monitor
treatment will be conducted in
Appropriate
Management Units
require
accordance with these
require
MK01\RPT:00628026.003\site8rod.apa
09/16/94
ARARs FOR ALTERNATIVE 4:
IN SITU SO
SOURCE AREA SOIL, RECOVERY AND
OFF-SITE DISPOSAL OF FREE-PH
DISSOLVED-PHASE
CONTAMINANT MIGRATION IN THE OVER
ZONE, ON-SITE TREATMENT
OF RECOVERED GROUNDWATER, D
GROUNDWATER TO
SUBSURFACE RECHARGE TREN
CONTROLS
SITE 8
(Continued)
Medium
Requirements
Requirement
Status
Hazardous
RSA Ch. 147-A, NH Hazardous Waste
Stan
hazardous waste
Management of waste as part of
See following
Waste/Soil
Management Act and Hazardous Waste Rules,
faci
RCRA
CERCLA response must comply
section-by-section
Env-Wm, Chapters 100-1000, specific
Subt
the substantive standards of
analysis.
requirements detailed below.
Groundwater
GMZ to be
STATE ÄÄ NH Admin. Code Env-Ws 410.26,
Remedial action will be designed
Applicable
Groundwater Management Zone
to meet groundwater quality
At c
desi
Wher
drin
extr
rest
impl
ambi
Hazardous
or operators
facilities.
353.09-
STATE-NH Admin. Code Env-Wm 351-353,
All remedial activities will comply
Relevant and
701-705, 707, 708, and 709 Standards for Owners
with the substantive provision of
Appropriate
and Operators of Hazardous Waste Facilities
state hazardous waste regulations.
Gene
of h
Incl
353.
(702
other monitoring
requirements (708.02); and
tech
Hazardous
STATE-NH Admin. Code Env-Wm 702.10operation of
Environmental monitoring during
Relevant and
Waste/Soil
702.14, Monitoring of Hazardous Waste
remedial operations will be
Appropriate
Treatment Facilities
installed in
Requ
one
syst
Gr
with these regulations.
Ai
Le
MK01\RPT:00628026.003\site8rod.apa
09/16/94
ARARs FOR ALTERNATIVE 4:
IN SITU SO
SOURCE AREA SOIL, RECOVERY AND
OFF-SITE DISPOSAL OF FREE-PH
DISSOLVED-PHASE
CONTAMINANT MIGRATION IN THE OVER
ZONE, ON-SITE TREATMENT
OF RECOVERED GROUNDWATER, D
GROUNDWATER TO
SUBSURFACE RECHARGE TREN
CONTROLS
SITE 8
(Continued)
Medium
Requirements
Requirement
Status
Hazardous
STATE-NH Admin. Code Env-Wm 707.03,
requirements of
The excavated soil stockpiled at
Applicable
Waste/Soil
Waste Pile Requirements
the site will comply with these
Hazardous
requirements for
Waste/Soil
actions, and
Inco
40 C
STATE-NH Admin. Code Env-Ws 412,
Esta
The requirements of this
Relevant and
Reporting and Remediation of Oil Discharges
noti
regulation have been used in the
Appropriate
inve
the remedial
have
Hazardous
STATE-NH Guidance Document
The requirement has been
TBC
Waste/Soil
Interim Policy for the Management of Soils
reviewed during the development
Contaminated from the Spills/Releases of
of the FS Report.
Virgin Petroleum Products
Poli
and
disp
reme
cont
Groundwater
STATE-RSA 485-A:12, Enforcement of
Any
lowers the
Remedial alternatives involving the
Applicable
Classification
quality of the water
classification is
discharge to groundwater must
proh
standards.
Groundwater
with
STATE-RSA 485-A:13, Permit for Discharge
Remedial measures involving
Applicable
Disc
effl
must
require a
MK01\RPT:00628026.003\site8rod.apa
09/16/94
ARARs FOR ALTERNATIVE 4:
IN SITU SO
SOURCE AREA SOIL, RECOVERY AND
OFF-SITE DISPOSAL OF FREE-PH
DISSOLVED-PHASE
CONTAMINANT MIGRATION IN THE OVER
ZONE, ON-SITE TREATMENT
OF RECOVERED GROUNDWATER, D
GROUNDWATER TO
SUBSURFACE RECHARGE TREN
CONTROLS
SITE 8
(Continued)
Medium
Requirements
Requirement
Status
Groundwater
requires action
STATE-Env-Ws 410.03, Groundwater Quality
Remedial action will be conducted
Applicable
Criteria
Comp
to e
with the
drin
Grou
caus
due
EnvGroundwater
STATE-Env-Ws 410.07, 410.08, 410.09, and
without
Remedial measures involving
Applicable
410.10, Prohibited Discharge, Groundwater
discharges to groundwater must
Discharge Zone, Groundwater Discharge Permit
within
comply with this regulation.
Compliance Criteria
Proh
Groundwater
STATE-Env-Ws 410.20, Notification to
notice of the
Action will be taken in accordance
Substantive
Landowners
requirement.
requirements
Requ
use
requ
disc
grou
perm
the
applicable
appr
Groundwater
STATE-Env-Ws 410.21, Recordation
Remedial action will be conducted
Substantive
Regu
grou
accordance with the
requirements
of d
applicable
the
MK01\RPT:00628026.003\site8rod.apa
09/16/94
ARARs FOR ALTERNATIVE 4:
IN SITU SO
SOURCE AREA SOIL, RECOVERY AND
OFF-SITE DISPOSAL OF FREE-PH
DISSOLVED-PHASE
CONTAMINANT MIGRATION IN THE OVER
ZONE, ON-SITE TREATMENT
OF RECOVERED GROUNDWATER, D
GROUNDWATER TO
SUBSURFACE RECHARGE TREN
CONTROLS
SITE 8
(Continued)
Medium
Requirements
Requirement
Status
Groundwater
groundwater
established.
STATE-Env-Ws 410.18, Groundwater
As part of the remedy, GMZ will
Management Permit
Action will be
requirements
Requ
Substantive
mana
of a
groundwater
applicable
caus
criteria and restrict
qual
use within the GMZ.
be
Groundwater
STATE-Env-Ws 410.27, Groundwater
violation
Remedial action will be conducted
Substantive
Management Permit Compliance Criteria
at
in accordance with this
requirements
Spec
of a
or o
applicable
Groundwater
STATE-Env-Ws 410.30, Water Quality
Remedial action will be conducted
Substantive
Sampling, Analysis, and Reporting
in accordance with these
requirements
Spec
grou
the
applicable
prot
Air
standards for
FEDERAL-RCRA 40 CFR Part 264, Subpart
Equipment used in remedial
Applicable
AA
Cont
proc
meet these
frac
extr
Appl
haza
of 1
MK01\RPT:00628026.003\site8rod.apa
09/16/94
ARARs FOR ALTERNATIVE 4:
IN SITU SO
SOURCE AREA SOIL, RECOVERY AND
OFF-SITE DISPOSAL OF FREE-PH
DISSOLVED-PHASE
CONTAMINANT MIGRATION IN THE OVER
ZONE, ON-SITE TREATMENT
OF RECOVERED GROUNDWATER, D
GROUNDWATER TO
SUBSURFACE RECHARGE TREN
CONTROLS
SITE 8
(Continued)
Medium
Requirements
Requirement
Status
Air
FEDERAL-RCRA 40 CFR Part 264,
Equipment used in remedial
Relevant and
Subpart BB
activities will meet the design
Appropriate
Cont
for
equi
stor
and will be
specifications and requirements
Contains design
monitored for leaks.
for
appl
cont
conc
Air
FEDERAL-RCRA 40 CFR Part 264,
Required emissions controls will
TBC
Subpart CC (proposed)
installed.
Cont
stan
usin
cont
Spec
to b
equa
Air
methods and
STATE-NH Admin. Code Env-A 1024, Control
Precautions will be taken during
of VOC Emissions
remedial actions to minimize VOC
Spec
TBC
esta
vari
Air
designed to
FEDERAL-CAA-National Emission Standards
Maxi
Releases of contaminants to the air
Applicable
for Hazardous Air Pollutants (NESHAP)
prot
during SVE and groundwater
poll
these
the
MK01\RPT:00628026.003\site8rod.apa
09/16/94
ARARs FOR ALTERNATIVE 4:
IN SITU SO
SOURCE AREA SOIL, RECOVERY AND
OFF-SITE DISPOSAL OF FREE-PH
DISSOLVED-PHASE
CONTAMINANT MIGRATION IN THE OVER
ZONE, ON-SITE TREATMENT
OF RECOVERED GROUNDWATER, D
GROUNDWATER TO
SUBSURFACE RECHARGE TREN
CONTROLS
SITE 8
(Continued)
Medium
Requirements
Requirement
Status
Air
secondary levels
FEDERAL-CAA-National Ambient Air Quality
NAAQ
The levels established for these six
Applicable
Standards (NAAQS), 40 CFR 50
for
air contaminants will be used as
diox
that may not be
ozon
ambient air at the
air.
source
Air
FEDERAL-EPA Policy on Control of Air
Controls on air stripper will be
TBC
Emissions from Superfund Air Strippers at
Superfund
used as necessary to attain
Superfund Groundwater Sites, OSWER
requirements.
Directive 9355.0-28.
Prov
Air
followed for
Iden
STATE-NH Admin. Code Env-A 800, Testing
During the source control and
Applicable
and Monitoring Procedures
management of migration
emis
site
the
sour
emissions
Air
STATE-NH Admin. Code Env-1002, Fugitive
Precautions to control fugitive dust
Applicable
Dust Control
will be required during
Requ
and
cont
incl
activities.
These
haul
to.
MK01\RPT:00628026.003\site8rod.apa
09/16/94
ARARs FOR ALTERNATIVE 4:
IN SITU SO
SOURCE AREA SOIL, RECOVERY AND
OFF-SITE DISPOSAL OF FREE-PH
DISSOLVED-PHASE
CONTAMINANT MIGRATION IN THE OVER
ZONE, ON-SITE TREATMENT
OF RECOVERED GROUNDWATER, D
GROUNDWATER TO
SUBSURFACE RECHARGE TREN
CONTROLS
SITE 8
(Continued)
Medium
Requirements
Requirement
Status
Air
(AALs) to
STATE-NH Admin. Code Env-A 1300, Toxic
Release of contaminants in the air
Applicable
Air Pollutants
on-site remedial activities
Esta
prot
poll
exceedance of the
adve
exists.
not
of
with
Air
See below.
STATE-RSA Ch. 125C, Air Pollution Control,
Applicable
NH Admin. Rules, Env. A 100-1300, as specified
below
Air
levels for
STATE-NH Admin. Code Env-A 300, Ambient
These ambient air levels will be
Applicable
Air Quality Standards
incorporated with federal NAAQs
Air
Esta
eigh
sulf
target levels that may
diox
exceeded as a result of
lead
groundwater
be
Air
pollution
STATE-Env-A 505.02(a), Emergency Procedures
Comply with directions of state in
Applicable
Impo
in c
status.
MK01\RPT:00628026.003\site8rod.apa
09/16/94
ARARs FOR ALTERNATIVE 4:
IN SITU SO
SOURCE AREA SOIL, RECOVERY AND
OFF-SITE DISPOSAL OF FREE-PH
DISSOLVED-PHASE
CONTAMINANT MIGRATION IN THE OVER
ZONE, ON-SITE TREATMENT
OF RECOVERED GROUNDWATER, D
GROUNDWATER TO
SUBSURFACE RECHARGE TREN
CONTROLS
SITE 8
(Continued)
Medium
Requirements
Requirement
Status
Air
STATE-Env-A 902, Malfunctions of Air
No additional action required;
Applicable
Pollution Control Equipment
provides relief from other
Prov
requ
(Not
Air
excavation
STATE-NH Admin. Rules, Env. A 1002,
Maintain dust control during site
Applicable
Fugitive Dust Emission Control
Acti
must
remediation.
cont
Air
devices
STATE-Env-A 1305, Impact Analysis and
Discharge from any new applicable
Applicable
Permit Requirements
modified facility must comply
Requ
emit
MK01\RPT:00628026.003\site8rod.apa
09/16/94
APPENDIX B
DECLARATION OF CONCURRENCE
MK01\RPT:00628026.003\site8rod.fm
09/19/94
State of New Hampshire
DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL SERVICES
6 Hazen Drive, P.O. Box 95, Concord, NH 03302-0095
NHDES
603-271-3503
TDD Access:
FAX 603-771-2867
Relay NH 1-800-735-2964
September 13, 1994
Mr. Alan K. Olsen
Director, Air Force Base Conversion Agency
1700 North Moore Street, Suite 2300
Arlington, VA 22209-2802
Re:
Record of Decision for Site 8
Pease Air Force Base Superfund Site
Pease Air Force Base, New Hampshire
Subject:
Declaration of Concurrence
Dear Mr. Olsen:
The "Record of Decision for Site 8" (Site 8 ROD) presents the selec
action, designed to protect human and ecological receptors in the vicini
Department Training Area 2 at the Pease Air Force Base Superfund Site, l
Newington and Portsmouth, New Hampshire. Based upon its review of the S
and acting as agent for the State of New Hampshire, the Department concu
remedial action decision, selected under CERCLA, for Site 8.
The Site 8 ROD was developed in accordance with the Comprehensive
Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1986 (CERCLA)
outlines source control actions and management of migration actions to b
by the Air Force in order to remedy the threat to human health and the e
by contamination at Site 8.
Prior to Pease Air Force Base becoming a Superfund site, and as a p
"Pease Federal Facility Agreement Under CERCLA Section 120" (Pease FFA),
Department has been actively involved in the oversight of the Air Force'
response activities at Site 8. The approach to site remediation, as out
ROD, is generally consistent with the approach the Department would requ
Remedial Action Plan for similar sites in the State of New Hampshire, re
Superfund status. White the Site 8 ROD is more conceptual than what the
would require in a Remedial Action Plan, to the extent practicable, the
evaluated the appropriateness, feasiblity and effectiveness of the selec
method, both long-term and short-term, to determine the degree of certai
plan will prove successful in achieving the remedial goals of the Depart
AIR RESOURCES DIV.
WASTE MANAGEMENT DIV.
SUPPLY & POLLUTION CONTROL DIV.
64 No. Main Street
6 Hazen Drive
Caller Box 2033
Concord, N.H. 03301
Concord, N.H. 03302-2033
Tel. 603-271-2900
Tel. 603-271-1370
Fax 603-271-2456
Fax 603-271-1381
WATER RESOURCES DIV.
64 No. Main Street
P.O. Box 2008
Concord, N.H. 03302-2008
Tel. 603-271-3406
Fax 603-271-6588
Letter to Alan K. Olsen
Re: Site 8 ROD Declaration of Concurrence
September 13, 1994
Consistent with the Department's requirement to remove, treat or co
contamination source to prevent the additional release of contaminants t
the selected action includes:
In-situ soil vapor extraction (SVE) treatment of contaminated
soil;
Treatment of extracted soil vapor for removal of Volatile Org
(VOCs);
Recovery of free-phase floating product and disposal off-base
treatment/disposal facility; and,
A contingency source control measure (i.e., installation of f
recovery trenches) will be installed if it is determined free
begins to migrate away from the source area.
Consistent with the Department's requirements to contain and confin
groundwater and restore groundwater quality, the selected action include
Implementation of a groundwater recovery system designed to c
dissolved phase contamination in the overburden groundwater;
On-site treatment of recovered groundwater by air-stripping w
activated carbon and vapor-phase activated carbon (if necessa
discharge to on-site subsurface recharge trenches;
A contingency groundwater response action (i.e., recovery of
groundwater) will implemented if it is determined that the cl
groundwater in the bedrock water-bearing unit is not progress
Monitoring of remedial performance and long-term environmenta
Long-term monitoring of groundwater, surface water and sediments wi
necessary in order to determine the effectiveness of the remedial action
quality monitoring is determined on a site specific basis and will be ad
Groundwater Management Permit, issued by the Department. Frequency and
water quality monitoring is typically required on a tri-annual basis unt
is established.
Letter to Alan K. Olsen
Re: Site 8 ROD Declaration of Concurrence
September 13, 1994
A comprehensive, detailed review of all environmental monitoring da
conducted by the Air Force, EPA and the Department in order to ensure th
action provides adequate protection of human health and the environment
with applicable regulations.
Sincerely,
Robert W. Varney
Commissioner
cc:
Philip J. O'Brien, Ph.D., Director, DES-WMD
Carl W. Baxter, P.E., DES-WMEB
Richard H. Pease, P.E., DES-WMEB
Martha A. Moore, Esq., NHDOJ-AGO
Michael J. Daly, EPA
Arthur L. Ditto, P.E., AFBCA
James Snyder, AFCEE
APPENDIX C
RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY
MK01\RPT:00628026.003\site8rod.apc
09/14/94
RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY
OVERVIEW
The Air Force issued the Site 8 Proposed Plan to the public in January 1
8 Proposed Plan, the Air Force identified its preferred alternative for
of this preferred alternative by the Air Force was coordinated with U.S.
(EPA) and NHDES. The preferred alternative involves soil and floating f
mixture cleanup at the source area and groundwater containment and treat
The subsections that follow describe the background on community involve
8 activities and the Air Force's response to both written and verbal com
during the Site 8 Proposed Plan Public Comment Period of 26 January to 1
BACKGROUND ON COMMUNITY INVOLVEMENT
Prior to the start of the public comment period for Site 8, the Air Forc
that summarized the contents of the Site 8 Proposed Plan. Presentations
work being conducted and results of the work at Site 8 area were made to
Technical Review Committee (TRC). Additionally, the content of the Site
was provided to the TRC members in draft format and discussed with the T
in November 1993. Input from the TRC members was taken into account in
final Site 8 Proposed Plan. Announcements were mailed to all individual
AFB Community Relations Plan mailing list in January 1994 prior to the b
public comment period. Additionally, press releases were issued to the
the beginning of the public comment period. Announcements were publishe
newspapers prior to the public hearing date of 1 March 1994. The origin
scheduled for 9 February 1994, had to be postponed due to inclement weat
cancellation were sent to all media and interested parties. The resched
date and public comment period extension announcements were published in
newspapers. It is noted that the public comment period and public heari
concurrent with Zone 5. Proposed remedial actions for Site 8 and Zone 5
equally to the public.
SUMMARY OF COMMENTS RECEIVED DURING THE COMMENT PERIOD AND AIR
FORCE RESPONSES
During the public comment period, three sets of written comments were re
individuals provided comments at the public hearing held on 1 March 1994
received during the comment period are summarized as follows, along with
response to each comment. A copy of the public hearing transcript is av
along with the written comments received on the Site 8 Proposed Plan, at
Information Repository located at 61 International Drive, Building 43, a
Hampshire.
MK01\RPT:00628026.003\site8rod.apc
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Comment (written):
There should be mention of a written Section 1
110 process which would address the preservati
forest.
Response:
As part of the remedial action evaluation proc
Force has to evaluate all Applicable or Releva
Appropriate Requirements, of which the Nationa
Preservation is one. Reference to this Act is
8 Feasibility Study (FS) and will be reference
Record of Decision (ROD).
Comment (written):
In all of the maps for both publications, the
Forest designation is not correct nor outlined
Response:
The designation and location of the Newington
will be clearly shown in the figures included
Site 8 RODs, as will Site 11, the Field Mainte
Equipment Cleaning Site.
Comment (written):
Proposed Plan 3 (sic) does not include the spe
the site is on the National Register of Histor
Response:
Reference will be made in the Site History sec
8 ROD that a portion of Site 8 lies within the
Town Forest. A brief discussion of the histor
Forest will be included.
Comment (written):
Why is the ROD not submitted to SHPO (NHDHR) f
approval?
Response:
SHPO does not have approval authority for envi
remedial action RODs; this authority rests wit
Comment (written):
Why is not the National Register designation
this definitely affects the management of the
be a consideration.
Response:
6.
09/14/
Reference to the fact that the Newington Town Fore
on the National Register of Historic Places will b
the Site 8 ROD. See response to comment no. 4.
Comment (written):
How do you expect to keep the NHDHR advised o
next 30 years of your cleanup operations at Zone 5
Response:
The Air Force believes the question is intended
toward the Site 8 action because that is the only
would involve the NHDHR. The Air Force and NHDHR
MK01\RPT:00628026.003\site8rod.apc
in the process of developing a Memorandum of
(MOA) governing the Site 8 remedial activities
occur within the boundaries of the Newington T
One aspect of this MOA will be a provision for
these activities. This monitoring requirement
NHDHR with status of activities for the life o
addition, the Air Force will use a forestry co
design and implementation of the remedial acti
best management practices for all actions in t
7.
8.
9.
Comment (written):
Is there a written management plan about the d
(now and future) to the Town Forest?
Response:
As stated in response to comment no. 6, th
NHDHR are in the process of developing an MOA
govern the Site 8 remedial action work within
of the Newington Town Forest. On 28 February
Force met with representatives of the NHDHR, a
representatives from the Newington Selectmen's
review the proposed activities for Site 8 and
potential impact and methods to minimize them.
of this discussion are being used to develop t
Town of Newington will be a concurring party t
Comment (written):
The Newington Historic District Commission wis
informed of the remedial operation and hopes t
Newington Forest Management Plan recommendatio
a consideration as you implement your remediat
Response:
The Air Force has established a Technical Rev
(TRC) that meets monthly to review and discuss
environmental activities at Pease AFB, includi
action activities at Site 8. The Town of Newi
Selectmen's Office has a representative on the
provide the up-to-date status of the Site 8 ac
various Newington Boards and Commissions. For
management operation, consistent with the hist
the Newington Town Forest, is one of the facto
in the development of the MOA referenced in re
comment no. 6.
Comment (written):
As for the matter at hand this evening, we co
proposed remediation of Site 8, with the unde
every effort will be made to avoid adverse im
Newington Town Forest, the oldest such forest
States, a status that was duly recognized by the U
MK01\RPT:00628026.003\site8rod.apc
09/14/94
of the Interior when the forest was listed on
Register of Historic Places.
Response:
10.
Comment (written):
It is the recommendation to cap rather than re
contaminated soil that I strongly oppose. I belie
removal of contaminated soil from the surface to t
the high water table is a justified despite the co
capping is not an acceptable alternative.
Response:
11.
The Air Force intends to fully clean up the s
source area at Site 8, meeting the cleanup goals s
the Proposed Plan. The remedial technology select
Air Force to accomplish this cleanup is soil vapor
(SVE). SVE will remove the contaminants within th
without having to excavate the soil. This process
to take approximately 5 years to complete. The ca
commentor refers to is only a component of the SVE
The cap makes the SVE process more efficient. Sev
excavation options were considered in the FS; howe
the nine required criteria to evaluate each altern
Force determined that the SVE was overall a better
technology to apply at Site 8 for soil remediation
excavation and on-site treatment of soil.
Comment (written):
On Figure 1, the General Site Map for Site 8,
AF Preferred Alternative Site Plan, the property b
for the Cross lot do not correctly reflect the cur
maps and site plan for my lot on file in the Rocki
County records. This correction is important as i
that the plume of contamination is across my land
been directly impacted. For your final report att
please adjust the lines as indicated on the c
Response:
12.
The Air Force is taking into account the pote
Site 8 actions might have on the Newington Town Fo
The Air Force is working with the NHDHR to develop
MOA governing the work activities in the Town Fore
In development of the MOA, strong consideration wi
given to specifying methods of work execution to m
negative effects to the Town Forest area.
The general site map for Site 8 and other app
will be correct in future documents, including the
to correctly show the Cross property boundary.
Comment (written):
The last sentence on Page 4-1 states 262 tons
soil were removed. What was the cost to treat this soi
MK01\RPT:00628026.003\site8rod.apc
09/14/94
what was done to it? Does it become much chea
done on a large scale?
Response:
The 262 tons, or 175 cubic yards (yd3), of co
were transported to a secure landfill in Main
Environmental Recovery Facilities, Inc., of H
February 1990. The cost of this disposal pro
approximately $52,000. The cost of disposal
today and on a larger scale would not be nece
cheaper (unit price). It would potentially b
because of new regulations that have been put
specify how, where, and what pretreatment mus
before contaminated items can be disposed of.
this past disposal method is an example of ju
contaminated media from point A to point B wi
reduction of contaminant toxicity or volume.
preferred EPA objective for remedial actions
contaminated toxicity, mobility, and volume t
actions, i.e., treament inplace rather than m
contamination to another location.
13.
Comment (written):
Page 4-2, Para 4.2.1: How many tons of soil a
within 500 feet horizontally to a depth of 30 feet? How
rapidly does the level of contamination decrease with d
Can you remove a good portion of the problem with remov
only the top "X" many feet? For example, if you remove
down to the top of the water table level, how many feet
it be?
Response:
14.
The levels of contamination in the soil actua
depth, with the highest level of contamination being in
smear zone at the water table. This smear zone is
approximately 7 feet wide (vertical) and occurs at a de
approximately 25 feet below ground surface (ft BGS). T
total volume of soil that would have to be removed to
excavate the contaminated soil in the smear zone is est
at 175,000 yd3, of which approximately 59,000 yd3 of so
actually contaminated.
Comment (written):
Page 4-2, Para 4.2.2: Are the contaminants o
Brook not site related because they are a different typ
found at Site 8? I could not locate Knights Brook in F
1. Did I overlook it? Since you refer to it in the re
would help to label it in Figure 1.
Response:
The results of the Site 8 Remedial Investigat
that groundwater from the site discharges to Pickering
MK01\RPT:00628026.003\site8rod.apc
09/19/94
The surface water and sediment sampling locations
as part of the Site 8 Remedial Investigation detec
contaminants in Pickering Brook. The contaminants
in Pickering Brook are not considered to be Site 8
because of the limited ability of the contaminants
from Site 8 to Pickering Brook. However, sin
has been owned by the Air Force for the past 40 ye
contamination in Pickering Brook is most likely th
Air Force activities. Regardless of the source of
contamination, the levels of these contaminants de
Pickering Brook were either below regulatory crite
exceeded criteria at a low frequency. These excee
occurred infrequently during sampling rounds at on
two of the sampling locations along Pickering Broo
results of the Site 8 risk assessment revealed tha
to human and ecological receptors were acceptable
consequently, do not require remediation. In addi
Force continues to monitor surface water and sedim
at Pease AFB and will be monitoring surface water
Pickering and Knights Brooks as part of the remedi
for Site 8. Labeling of Knights Brook was inadver
off of Figure 1. Knights Brook begins in the wetl
shown in the Frink Trust property in Figure 1.
15.
Comment (written):
Page 5-1: Human Health Risk: None posed. D
that there should be no restrictions on use of the
nature trail where hikers would sit on or touch th
Ecological Risk: Risks posed to mouse and sparrow
is the risk to animals that may catch and eat thos
risk?
Response:
True, for all media except for groundwater.
surface use of the area would be unrestricted. Fo
nonresidential use, risks were evaluated assuming
industrial/commercial use of the property in the v
former burn areas. This future use assumption is
with the current zoning for this area. Based on t
assumption, risks were evaluated for a maintenance
who is the most likely maximally exposed individua
potential for health risks was below EPA's benchma
concern. Risks to a recreational user, such as a
be expected to be even lower than risks to a maint
worker. Animal uptake by evaluated receptors is t
account in the ecological risk assessment process.
of other animals that may eat the evaluated recept
conducted. As indicated in the Proposed Plan and
explained in the Site 8 Remedial Investigation (RI
MK01\RPT:00628026.003\site8rod.apc
09/19/94
ecological risk to the evaluated receptors in
Knights Brooks is within a range where it has
determined remedial actions are not warranted
16.
Comment (written:
Response:
Page 6-1, 2nd Para. states that soil cleanup t
is not required because there is no risk. Please
this is an overstatement selected to better s
the soil. It conflicts with the previous pag
ecological risk was in the range of uncertain
The risk assessment process is divided into t
health and the environment (ecological). The
conducting the human health risk assessment e
well established and is based on clearly stat
guidance. The ecological evaluation is somew
and includes many conservative assumptions th
computed risk values having a large range of
Site 8, the results of the human health risk
that, for all media except groundwater, the p
adverse health effects is below EPA's benchma
(i.e,, the potential for risk is very low). T
have better phrased this statement by saying
pose an unacceptable risk"; therefore, soil remedi
considered necessary. The values computed fo
risk resulting from surface soil were in the
The assumptions about the physical site condi
the representative species are evaluated and
determination is made. In this case, it was
the ecological risks were such that actions w
The second paragraph on page 6-1 of the Propo
not state there are "no" risks, but rather th
do not pose a risk.
17.
Comment (written):
Page 7-3, 1st Bullet: Can the SVE system ope
cap? SVE wells are to what depth? How do yo
drill so many wells in the forest without dis
structure and harming the Town Forest? How w
increased air flow change the moisture level
of the existing trees, and what harm could th
existing trees? Will any of the SVE system i
piping be aboveground? If so, what will be d
these in the forest? If not, how do you prev
existing tree roots when installing the pipes
Response:
The SVE system can operate without a cap. Th
will be installed to a depth of approximately
treatment interval of 10 feet (depth of 18 to
MK01\RPT:00628026.003\site8rod.apc
09/19/94
wells to be installed in the Town Forest area
to minimize the impact to trees without compromisi
SVE process. Work in the Town Forest will be cove
an MOA between the Air Force and NHDHR (see respon
to comment no. 9). With the treatment interval st
depth of 18 feet and the shallow nature of the roo
the pine trees in the town forest, it is not expec
process will impact the moisture level at the tree
connection of the SVE wells will be aboveground to
the impacts on the root systems. In relation to t
Town Forest (300 years), the SVE system will be pr
a short period (estimated at 5 years). For this s
it is believed that the negative aspects of the ab
piping in 1 acre of the forest can be accepted, th
been discussed with the NHDHR and Newington Town
officials in the development of the MOA for the Ne
Town Forest.
18.
Comment (written):
Page 7-3, 2nd Bullet: The statement that the
in lowering the water table is incorrect unless the cap
water rather than just shielding it. Doesn't the water
run to the sides and flow horizontally under to the sam
Isn't the groundwater recovery system based on this fre
horizontal flow? Would you consider rephrasing your
statement to say the cap in the cleared area has a mini
disturbance to the remaining trees although it prevents
Town Forest from reclaiming the FDTA cleared area by re
growth for 30 years?
Response:
The cap will be graded such that the water interce
cap is drained away from the site. This will
fluctuations in the water table as the Site 8 former bu
represent a groundwater recharge area. The Newing
Forest area, as listed on the National Register of Hist
Places, does not include the former burn areas of Site
boundary for the Town Forest is the stone wall that lie
of the Site 8 fire training area. Future use of the pr
encompassed by the Site 8 fire training area will be at
option of the new property owner once transfer occurs.
Currently, a majority of the Site 8 fire training area
the Airport District at the Pease International Tradepo
surrounding area is zoned airport industrial by the Tow
Newington. The Air Force is unaware of any plan by the
reuse organization(s) for Pease to expand the Town Fore
into the Site 8 fire training area. The groundwater re
system is based on horizontal flow, the cap helps stabi
vertical components of the groundwater units. A statem
MK01\RPT:00628026.003\site8rod.apc
09/19/94
will be made in the Site 8 ROD that the area
will have a minimal effect on the adjacent To
19.
Comment (written):
Response:
20.
21.
The trenthes shown in Figure 3 are recharge t
recovery trenches. These recharge trenches ar
Newington Town Forest area, with the depth of
being approximately 6 feet. Please note this
show the location of the Town Forest areas in
ROD. As for the recovery trenches, first the
established if it is determined that the recov
needed, then a location must be determined. I
recovery trenches need to be located in the To
the Air Force will have to coordinate this act
accordance with the MOA governing work in the
area. As the Town of Newington will be a conc
this MOA, its input to the location of the tre
solicited.
Comment (written):
Response:
Page 7-3: How deep would the recovery trench
locations shown in Figure 3, how would you pre
damage to the existing Town Forest? To what e
Newington have a voice in whether and where th
will be dug?
Page 7-3: Is there a formal report by which
notified of progress in attaining the overburd
Will these only be changed with Newington's co
The cleanup goals will be specified in the Site 8
goals can only be changed through revision to, or modif
of, the ROD. This would require EPA and NHDES
concurrence and public input before the decision proces
completed. The Newington representative on the TRC wil
kept apprised of the status of the remedial action at S
Additionally, the reoccurring, 5-year review process wi
become public information.
Comment (written):
Page 7-3, Last Bullet:
Why is worker protecti
needed if the soil is safe for human contact as stated
5-1? How are we sure that funds will continue to be av
for the monitoring and reporting?
Response:
The risk assessment for human health was based on
maintenance worker who is exposed to soil in the 0- to
0- to 15-foot levels year-round on a long-term basis.
assumes that no major disturbance of the soil occurs. Th
construction work during installation of the SVE system w
MK01\RPT:00628026.003\site8rod.apc
09/16/94
result in soil below 15 feet, where the highe
exist, being brought to the surface. This could r
worker exposure to both soil themselves and vapors
emanate from the soil and to large quantities of s
be generated during construction activities. The
the construction worker is for the potential risk
relatively short-term exposure to higher doses of
The risks can be very different from those posed t
maintenance worker as a result of long-term exposu
doses. Therefore, worker protection monitoring ne
put into place during the construction phase. It
of the Air Force to fully fund this remedial actio
future fund distributions are really a function of
Congress authorizes to the Air Force as part of DO
process. The future congressional actions are out
control of the Air Force.
22.
Comment (written):
Please send me the cleanup goal (æg/kg) for b,
DCA; and TCE.
Response:
The cleanup standards for the compounds are e
regulatory standards known as Maximum Contaminant
(MCLs). The following MCLs have been used for the
contaminants:
b,2, EHPh ÄÄ 6 parts per billion (ppb).
1,2 DCA ÄÄ 5 ppb.
TCE ÄÄ 5 ppb.
This information has been provided to the commento
reference Air Force letter of 25 March 1994. This
letter has been filed in the Administrative Record
23.
24.
Comment (written):
Please send me an explanation of the medial (s
on the health of people who become exposed over ti
chemicals detailed in your Site 8 and Zone 5 Propo
Response:
Information provided to commentor on 25 March
reference Air Force letter of 25 March 1994. This
letter has been filed in the Administrative Record
Comment (verbal):
As for the matter at hand this evening, we con
proposed remediation of Site 8, with the understan
every effort will be made to avoid adverse impacts
Newington Town Forest.
MK01\RPT:00628026.003\site8rod.apc
Response:
25.
The Air Force is making every effort to avoid adve
on the Newington Town Forest and yet not comp
integrity of the remedial action. The Air Fo
process of setting up an MOA with the NHDHR,
Town of Newington as a concurring party, whic
the work to be conducted within the boundaries of
Forest.
Comment (verbal):
Response:
26.
AS for Site 8, the fire training area, SCOPE
Air Force's proposed alternative and we appla
Force's foresight, and its flexibility in imp
extraction in the bedrock groundwater zone if
that MM-2 is not controlling mitigation of co
the bedrock.
The Air Force acknowledges SCOPE's concurrence
Comment (verbal):
One other comment, and that has to do with Si
the asphalt cover that's going to be put over
going to have the soil vapor extraction. In
your remarks, could you tell us how you're go
that area that's inside the Town Forest, the
Forest.
Response:
27.
09/19/94
Comment (verbal):
Response:
The area within the Newington Town Forest wher
points are installed will not be capped with
eliminate the need to clearcut the area withi
Forest where SVE will take place to install t
spacing will be adjusted to compensate for th
This will ensure that the maximum possible ef
SVE process is obtained.
Something specific to the management of migra
for Site 8, just a word of caution that I jus
Any groundwater pump-and-treat action will en
or shifting of the contaminant plume around i
overburden. In the absence of active groundw
from the bedrock, we would just like to cauti
emphasize the fact that very close monitoring
in both the overburden and bedrock occur duri
of the remediation.
The Air Force intends to closely monitor effec
groundwater pump-and-treat action has on both
overburden and bedrock water-bearing zones.
monitoring points, the Air Force will use con
MK01\RPT:00628026.003\site8rod.apc
09/19/94
monitoring probes. This water level monitoring wi
integral part of the long-term monitoring pla
28.
Comment (verbal):
I have about five comments.
One related to th
the deed restrictions. And one of the though
in the past is, even when I built my house, the ba
they would give me a mortgage at first was re
of things about contamination on the soil and
been done in the past before they would even
mortgage. And so if there are easements that
deed for certain monitoring of that property,
flag, saying to any mortgage company, uh-huh,
here? Now I know the land right now is owned
Base, but there is a potential that could bec
public land in the future.
Response:
29.
Comment (verbal):
The area of Site 8 that would require deed restric
be called a Groundwater Management Zone (GMZ)
zone boundary line is where the groundwater q
from unacceptable to acceptable, and usually
zone. For Site 8, the GMZ would mostly be on
Force property, with a small portion being on
Town property, Town Forest area behind the st
adjacent to Pease AFB boundary. If the Air F
transfer the property to a private entity in
covenant would be in the deed that states the
could not be used, ensure rights of access to
Air Force, and state Air Force responsibility
remedial action at the site. These actions w
that the responsibility for remedial action a
to the Air Force and would insulate the new o
liabilities from past Air Force activities.
The next comment I have related to...I've loo
alternatives and, you know, tried to understa
mean by each one of them. But nowhere have I
figure out that the efficiency of this soil v
Somewhere along the line it was determined th
efficient enough process to remove this conta
period of 30 years, and I couldn't see anythi
me how that related to excavation. So this w
you can remove this contamination by these hy
I guess it's pumping water, whatnot, doesn't
Will that be ultimately as efficient as takin
it differently? Is it a time difference? Wh
years?
MK01\RPT:00628026.003\site8rod.apc
Response:
09/19/94
There are two efficiency issues: one of the
various source area (burn pit) actions, in th
SVE process versus excavation, and the other
of the hydraulic controls (groundwater pump a
Regardless of which source area action is imp
8, pumping and treatment of the groundwater w
The time it will take to remediate the ground
acceptable levels would not likely be signifi
selection of one source area action over anot
difference between the various source area ac
years), as compared to the estimated 30 years
groundwater treatment, is not that great. Th
the various source area actions (soils treatm
execution as a measuring unit, are as follows
In-place SVE ÄÄ Estimated at 5 years.
Soil excavation and on-site biological/SV
ÄÄ Estimated at 3 years.
Soil excavation and on-site thermal treat
Estimated at 2 years.
From this it is seen that the excavation opti
Another factor that needs to be considered in
efficiencies is the ability to be able to act
In this case, the excavation of the contamina
more difficult than the installation of the S
contaminated soil that requires treatment is
groundwater table. This would result in a ma
excavation depth of 28 feet. To remove the e
yd3 of contaminated soil, a total of 175,000
have to be excavated. To handle and stage th
clean soil (175,000 - 43,000), approximately
adjacent to Site 8 would need to be cleared t
area for this soil. Additionally, dewatering
area would need to occur. Section 5 of the D
8 FS Report contains more detailed informatio
implementability of the various alternatives
Site 8.
30.
Comment (verbal):
The third point that I had is, I've looked at
alternatives, I can't really figure out who d
of these to choose. It sound like the Air Ba
several of them and decided that they would l
what is SC-3, MM2. And then some of the othe
said, you know, we're withholding our accepta
MK01\RPT:00628026.003\site8rod.apc
Response:
09/19/94
The Air Force identifies the alternative that
most appropriate for the site to EPA and NHDES. T
done in the draft Proposed Plan submitted to EPA a
NHDES under the provisions of the Pease AFB Federa
Facility Agreement. One aspect of the review of t
proposed plan by EPA and NHDES is acknowledgment o
acceptance of the alternative selected by the Air
acceptance of the alternative cannot be made, the
EPA, and/or NHDES meet to resolve any outstanding
and come to an agreement on the most appropriate
alternative. This agreed upon preferred alternati
the other alternatives evaluated in the FS are pre
public in the final Proposed Plan. What was meant
statement that other boards (NHDES) were withholdi
acceptance is that final acceptance was being with
satisfactory completion of the public comment proc
public comment process, especially the input recei
the public, plays an important role in the remedia
decisionmaking process. The final decision really
made until public input is received and considered
31.
Comment (verbal):
It seems to me that as an absolute minimum, yo
to, from the very beginning, accept MM-3 as yo
criteria. And the reason I say that is that y
there is contamination in the bedrock water.
accept that as the minimum alternative right n
figure out at what point in the future in thes
plans that you would then go back and decide t
There's nothing that says there would be publi
that, and it's just some undetermined date in
I don't feel comfortable with. If it was mand
of the alternative that gets adopted, if it tu
a problem, you just don't have to do it, but a
put into the proposal to begin with that is so
needs to be addressed.
Response:
The Air Force understands the commentor's conc
contamination in the bedrock water-bearing zon
equally concerned. The contamination at Site
from the former burn areas and enters the over
bearing zone. Migration of contamination in t
flows in a northerly direction, and, at a poin
8 former burn areas, some portion of the conta
overburden flows into the bedrock water-bearin
Air Force, based on data developed for Site 8,
the migration of contaminated water from the o
the bedrock can be controlled by hydraulic con
MK01\RPT:00628026.003\site8rod.apc
09/19/9
implemented in the overburden. Contamination
bedrock water-bearing zone would then attenua
As part of the design process, the Air Force
evaluate the migration control process to ens
really work. Additionally, a perform standar
measuring stick, will be developed to measure
effectiveness of the migration control implemented in t
overburden. The development of the performance standar
will be done as part of the design process, which will
EPA and NHDES review and require their concurrence
before the design can become final. A timeline would a
part of the performance standard that would specify whe
measurements would be taken and at what point a
determination would be made to implement pumping of the
bedrock water-bearing zone if it were determined to be
necessary. Public involvement is available at the pres
through the Technical Review Committee. If it is found
necessary or appropriate, additional public meetings co
held. In addition, the EPA regulatory process requires
formal review of the remediation process at 5-year inte
If performance of the remedial action is not meeting th
requirements of the ROD, the remedial process could be
revised, as necessary.
32.
Comment (verbal):
Now the next comment I have relates to, again,
concept of what is your next alternative, this SC4-MM3,
actually involves excavation and biological treatment.
I can't tell from this why that wouldn't be a preferred
alternative. I've looked at some of your charts, A, B,
all of the criteria that you judged, and it seems that,
I can tell, that's just based on cost. And so it gets
question, again, is the water pumping efficient or is t
efficient, and how was that decision made? Because rig
it's not possible to tell. It does seem to me that the
treatment of excavated soil is probably a bit of an ove
I still have real strong questions about why
there about Alternative 6 that disqualifies i
me that Alternative 5 has to be the bare mini
Alternative 6 still has to be addressed.
Response:
The presentation made in Table 3 of the Site 8 Proposed
Plan, using the A, B, C designation is an extreme
oversimplification of the detailed analysis evalua
performed in the FS. The need to pump the groundw
common to all the remedial actions except for Alte
no action. The major difference between the vario
alternatives is how the contamination in the soil
MK01\RPT:00628026.003\site8rod.apc
09/19/94
with, either treatment in-place or by excavation a
on-site. The major factor that distinguishes
treatment methods between one another is the
implement the action. In this case, the exca
is much more difficult to implement than is t
process. An evaluation of the efficiencies of the
treatment processes is provided in response t
29. Additionally, Section 5 of the Draft Fin
much more detailed information on the evaluat
various alternatives, including soil treatmen
33.
Comment (verbal):
Now the last comment I wanted to make relates
your drawing of where you put your MCL line.
being very careful to say that right now that
Pease boundary. Now I certainly would acknow
Air Base has been excellent in testing our sp
and in telling us what the levels of contamin
in the spring. It's certainly true that thos
what the health regulations, the whatever min
that you're using, but it's also very dear th
decreased after 5 years of treatment over on
It's not going down, it's not going up, but i
coming from the bedrock water that's going, I
underground and coming up in springs, which t
it's fairly arbitrary to, at this point in ti
water and the management of that is not neces
point of view, it's absolutely necessary. We
going to happen in the future for that contam
Response:
The MCL line that was drawn on the presentati
not just arbitrarily put at a particular loca
was selected based upon evaluation of the sam
the various bedrock monitor wells that have b
at the site. Based on this data evaluation,
indicate where the MCL line is generally loca
that the levels of contamination in the sprin
down in the past 5 years or since installatio
groundwater treatment plant in August 1990.
pilot system was not intended to be the final
did not influence the groundwater flow suffic
cause levels of contamination to decrease dow
site. The information gained from monitoring
the pilot plant along with the other investigation
generated at Site 8 have provided the Air For
information to better select the most effecti
Once the management of migration system (grou
pump and treat) is in place it will be monito
MK01\RPT:00628026.003\site8rod.apc
09/19/9
performance. Please also note that the prefe
provides management of migration of contaminan
from the overburden water-bearing zone into th
water-bearing zone. In other words, it is int
the contamination before it enters the bedrock
zone. Once this occurs, the low levels of con
present in the bedrock water-bearing zone will
decrease as a result of natural attenuation.
detectable performance standard would be hydra
followed by chemistry changes. The results of
sampling will be provided, as has been done in
affected people.
MK01\RPT:00628026.003\site8rod.apc
09/19/9
APPENDIX D
ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD INDEX
MK01\RPT:00628026.003\site8rod.apd
09/14/94
ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD FILE INDEX
FOR THE
INSTALLATION RESTORATION PROGRAM
ZONE 5 AND SITE 8
PEASE AIR FORCE BASE
NEW HAMPSHIRE
JANUARY 1994
MK01\RPT:00628026.003\site8rod.apd
09/14/94
ABOUT THE ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD FILE
The administrative record file is a collection of documents which f
the selection of a response action at a Superfund site. Under section 1
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CE
U.S. Air Force is required to establish an administrative record file fo
response action and to make a copy of the administrative record availabl
site.
The administrative record file must be reasonably available for pub
normal business hours. The record file should be treated as a non-circu
document. This will allow the public greater access to the volumes and
risk of loss or damage. Individuals may photocopy any documents in the
portion of the file, according to the photocopying procedures at the loc
The documents in the administrative record file may become lost or
use. If this occurs, contact the administrative record file manager at
Documents may be added to the administrative record file as site work pr
index will be updated as documents are added to the administrative recor
The administrative record file will be maintained in Building 43 at
Questions and/or comments about the administrative record file should be
Arthur L. Ditto, Remedial Project Manager
Air Force Base Disposal Agency
Operating Location A, Building 43
61 International Drive
Pease AFB, NH 03803-0157
(603) 430-2586
Dynamac Corporation assisted in the organization, establishment and on-s
Administrative Record File at Pease Air Force Base.
MK01\RPT:00628026.003\site8rod.apd
09/14/94
ABOUT THE INDEX NUMBERING SYSTEM
Document Number -
Comprised of a 3 letter site code (PEA), the c
the entry number and the page range of a docum
page numbers will be the same for a one page d
documents are eventually placed on a microfiche sy
document number consists of the site code followed
microfilm reel and frame number.
Example:
Site Code
(Category #)
PEA
(1.1)
PEA (1.1) #1 001-031
Entry #
#1
001-03
Long Title
The long title and brief description of doc
Author
Indicates author or primary originator of d
contractor prepared the document, indicates
and location.
Recipient
Indicates primary recipient of document.
Date
Indicates date document was issued.
Type
Indicates document type
Second Reference
Location
Other categories pertaining to the doc
Exact location(s) of document.
MK01\RPT:00628026.003\site8rod.apd
09/14/94
ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD FILE STRUCTURE
1.0
SITE IDENTIFICATION
1.1
Background - RCRA and other Information
1.2
Notification/Site Inspection Reports - No Entries in t
1.3
Preliminary Assessment (PA) Report
1.4
Site Investigation (SI) Reprt
1.5
Previous Operable Unit Information - No Entries in
1.6
Correspondence
2.0
REMOVAL RESPONSES
2.1
Sampling and Analysis Plans - No Entries in this Secti
2.2
Sampling and Analysis Data / Chain of Custody - No Ent
2.3
EE/CA Approval Memorandum
(Non-Time-Critical Removals) - No Entries in this
2.4
EE/CA (Engineering Evaluation / Cost Analysis) - No En
2.5
Action Memorandum - No Entries in this Section
2.6
Amendments to Action Memorandum - No Entries in this S
2.7
Removal Response Reports
2.8
Correspondence
3.0
REMEDIAL
3.1
3.2
3.3
3.4
3.5
3.6
INVESTIGATION (RI)
Sampling and Analysis Plan (SAP)
Sampling and Analysis Data/Chain of Custody Forms
Work Plan
Preliminary RI Field Work Reports
Remedial Investigation (RI) Reports
Correspondence
4.0
4.5
FEASIBILITY STUDY (FS)
4.1
ARAR Determinations
4.2
Feasibility Reports
4.3
Proposed Plan
4.4
Supplements and Revisions to the Proposed Plan - No En
Correspondence
5.4
RECORD OF DECISION (ROD)
5.1
ROD - No Entries in this Section
5.2
Amendments to ROD - No Entries in this Section
5.3
Explanations of Significant Differences - No Entries in
Correspondence
5.0
MK01\RPT:00628026.003\site8rod.apd
09/14/9
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 - No Entries in this Section
7.2
Endangerment Assessments - No Entries in this Section
7.3
Administrative Orders
7.4 Consent Decrees - No Entries in this Section
7.5
Affidavits - No Entries in this Section
7.6
Documentation of Technical Discussions/
Response Actions - No Entries in this Section
7.7
Notice Letters and Responses - No Entries in this Secti
8.0
HEALTH ASSESSMENTS
8.1
ATSDR Health Assessments - No Entries in this Section
8.2
Toxicological Profiles
8.3
General Correspondence - No Entries in this Section
9.0
NATURAL RESOURCE TRUSTEES
9.1
Notices Issued - No Entries in this Section
9.2
Findings of Fact - No Entries in this Section
9.3
Reports - No Entries in this Section
9.4
General Correspondence - No Entries in this Section
10.0
PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
10.1
Comments and Responses
10.2
Community Relations Plan
10.3
Public Notice(s) (Availability of the Admin. Record
Availability of the Proposed Plan, Public Meetings)
10.4
Public Meeting Transcripts
10.5
Documentation of other Public Meetings
10.6
Fact Sheets, Press Advisories, and News Releases
10.7
Responsiveness Summary - No Entries in this Section
10.8
Late Comments - No Entries in this Section
10.9
Technical Review Committee Charter - No Entries in this
10.10
Correspondence
MK01\RPT:00628026.003\site8rod.apd
09/14/94
11.0
TECHNICAL SOURCES, GUIDANCE, AND PROCEDURES DOCUMENTS
11.1
EPA Headquarters Guidance
11.2
EPA Regional Guidance
11.3
State Guidance
11.4
Air Force Guidance
11.5
Technical Sources
11.6
Proposed Procedures/Procedures
11.7
Correspondence
12.0
CONFIDENTIAL FILE
12.1
Privileged Documents (Extractions) - No Entries in this
MK01\RPT:00628026.003\site8rod.apd
09/14/94
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/Feasi
Pease Air Force Base
EPA, NHDES
April 1991
Scope of Work for RI/FS
None
ARF, IR
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
#
MK01\RPT:00628026.003\site8rod.apd
09/14/94
1.3 Preliminary Assessment (PA) Report
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (1.3) #1 001-068
LONG TITLE:
"Phase II Problem Confirmation and Quantification Pr
Sampling for SI Work)"
AUTHOR:
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
RECIPIENT:
EPA, NHDES, USAF Occupational and Environmental Health La
AFB, TX
DATE:
June 1984
TYPE:
Technical Report
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF, IR
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (1.3) #2 001-182
LONG TITLE:
"Installation Restoration Program Records Search"
AUTHOR:
CH2M Hill
RECIPIENT:
EPA; NHDES; USAF Engineering & Services Center, Tyndall A
NE
DATE:
January 1984
TYPE:
Technical Report
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF, IR
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (1.3) #3 001-041
LONG TITLE:
"Preliminary Assessment - Updated PA Report"
AUTHOR:
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
RECIPIENT:
EPA, NHDES
DATE:
20 July 1990
TYPE:
Letter Report
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF,IR
#
MK01\RPT:00628026.003\site8rod.apd
09/14/94
1.4 Site Investigation (SI) Report
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (1.4) #1 001-309
LONG TITLE:
"Installation Restoration Program, Phase II - Confirmatio
I, Volume I (Final Report for Period
October 1984 - July 1986)"
AUTHOR:
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
RECIPIENT:
HQ SAC/SGPB, Offutt AFB, NE; EPA; NHDES
DATE:
August 1986
TYPE:
Technical Report: Field Investigations
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF, IR
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (1.4) #2 001-883
LONG TITLE:
"Installation Restoration Program, Phase II - Confirmatio
1, Volume II (Appendices)"
AUTHOR:
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
RECIPIENT:
HQ SAC/SGPB, Offutt AFB, NE; EPA; NHDES
DATE:
August 1987
TYPE:
Technical Report: Field Investigations
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF, IR
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (1.4) # 001-308
LONG TITLE:
"Installation Restoration Program, Stage 3B Preliminary A
Inspection"
AUTHOR:
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
RECIPIENT:
EPA; NHDES; HQ SAC/DE, Offutt AFB, NE; AFSC HSD/YAQ, Broo
DATE:
February 1991
TYPE:
Technical Report: Also includes review of PA
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF, IR
#
MK01\RPT:00628026.003\site8rod.apd
09/14/94
1.6 Correspondence
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (1.6) #1 001-002
LONG TITLE:
"Comments Regarding the Installation Restoration Program,
Search Report, Pease Air Force Base"
AUTHOR:
The State of New Hampshire, Water Supply and Polluti
RECIPIENT:
HQ SAC, Offutt AFB, NE
DATE:
16 March 1984
TYPE:
Letter/Comments
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF, IR
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (1.6) #2 001-004
LONG TITLE:
"Comments Regarding the Installation Restoration Program
AUTHOR:
State of New Hampshire, Division of Public Health Se
RECIPIENT:
NH Division of Public Health Services
DATE:
24 November 1986
TYPE:
Comments to SI (1.4)
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (1.6) #3 001-005
LONG TITLE:
"Comments Regarding the Phase II, Stage 1 IRP Report (08/
AUTHOR:
State of New Hampshire, Department of Environmental
RECIPIENT:
Air Force
DATE:
3 February 1987
TYPE:
Comments to SI (1.4)
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (1.6) #4 001-007
LONG TITLE:
"Air Force Responses to Comments From the New Hampshire D
Environmental Services on the Phase II,
Stage 1 IRP Draft Report"
AUTHOR:
Department of the Air Force
RECIPIENT:
NHDES
DATE:
8 May 1987
TYPE:
Responses to Comments to SI (1.4)
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (1.6) #6 001-004
LONG TITLE:
"Letter Concerning Site Walkovers made with Members of Sh
Group"
AUTHOR:
State of New Hampshire, Department of Environmental
RECIPIENT:
Air Force
DATE:
18 July 1990
TYPE:
Letter
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF
#
MK01\RPT:00628026.003\site8rod.apd
2.7 Removal Response Reports
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (2.7) #2 001-070
LONG TITLE:
"Informal Technical Information Report, Soil Removal at S
pre-NPL Actions"
AUTHOR:
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
RECIPIENT:
EPA, NHDES
DATE:
December 1990
TYPE:
Technical Report
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (2.7) #5 001-900
LONG TITLE:
Installation Restoration Program, Stage 3A, IRP Site 8 Gr
Plant, Pease AFB, NH - Volume II
AUTHOR:
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
RECIPIENT:
USAF
DATE:
November 1991
TYPE:
Report
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (2.7) #6 001-H.12
LONG TITLE:
Installation Restoration Program, Stage 3A, IRP Site 8 Gr
Plant, Pease AFB, NH - Volume I
AUTHOR:
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
RECIPIENT:
USAF
DATE:
November 1991
TYPE:
Report
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF
#
MK01\RPT:00628026.003\site8rod.apd
09/14/94
2.8 Correspondence
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (2.8) #3 001-001
LONG TITLE:
"Letter Regarding Fire Training Area No. 2, Pilot Groundw
System"
AUTHOR:
Department of the Air Force
RECIPIENT:
Air Force
DATE:
11 October 1990
TYPE:
Letter
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (2.8) #6 001-001
LONG TITLE:
"Letter Regarding Fire Training Area No. 2, Pilot Groundw
System"
AUTHOR:
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
RECIPIENT:
Air Force
DATE:
12 November 1990
TYPE:
Letter
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (2.8) #8 001-004
LONG TITLE:
"Letter Regarding the Approval of Pease Air Force Base Gr
No. 8908-25P for the Fire Department
Training Area"
AUTHOR:
State of New Hampshire, Department of Environmental
RECIPIENT:
Air Force
DATE:
11 September 1989
TYPE:
Letter
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (2.8) #9
001-002
LONG TITLE:
"Letter Regarding Review of a Supplemental Proposal to Ai
Contaminated Groundwater"
AUTHOR:
State of New Hampshire, Department of Environmental
RECIPIENT:
Air Force
DATE:
13 September 1989
TYPE:
Letter
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (2.8) #10 001-003
LONG TITLE:
"Letter Regarding Revision of Pease Air Force Base Ground
8908-25P of the Former Fire Department
Training Area No. 2, Site 8"
AUTHOR:
U.S. Air Force
RECIPIENT:
State of New Hampshire
DATE:
18 April 1990
TYPE:
Letter
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (2.8) #11 001-001
LONG TITLE:
"Letter Regarding Groundwater Discharge Permit No. 8908-2
AUTHOR:
State of New Hampshire, Department of Environmental
RECIPIENT:
Air Force
MK01\RPT:00628026.003\site8rod.apd
09/14/94
DATE:
5 July 1990
TYPE:
Letter
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (2.8) #12 001-002
LONG TITLE:
"Letter to the New Hampshire Department of Environmental
Regarding Amendments to Groundwater Treatment
System air emissions"
AUTHOR:
Air Force
RECIPIENT:
NHDES
DATE:
20 August 1990
TYPE:
Letter
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (2.8) #19 001-008
LONG TITLE:
Proposal to Upgrade IRP Site 8 Pilot Groundwater Recovery
Systems
AUTHOR:
Fred Symmes
Assistant Project Engineer
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
RECIPIENT:
Mark McKenzie
U.S. Air Force/Pease AFB
DATE:
14 September 1992
TYPE:
Letter with Maps
SECOND REFERENCE:
Site 8, Pilot Groundwater Recovery and Recharge
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (2.8) #23 001-004
LONG TITLE:
Site 8 Groundwater Remediation System Update
AUTHOR:
Lee dePersia
Task Manager
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
RECIPIENT:
Arthur Ditto, RPM
U.S. Air Force/Pease AFB
DATE:
2 December 1992
TYPE:
Letter with Maps
SECOND REFERENCE:
Site 8, FDTA - 2
LOCATION:
ARF
#
MK01\RPT:00628026.003\site8rod.apd
09/14/94
3.1 Sampling and Analysis Plan (SAP)
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.1) #1
001-210
LONG TITLE:
"Quality Assurance Project Plan, Integrated Installation
Stage 2, to Support the Preliminary Remedial
Investigation Field Work, Labelled Stage 2 Field Work"
AUTHOR:
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
RECIPIENT:
EPA; NHDES; HQ SAC/DEPV, Offutt AFB, NE
DATE:
November 1987
TYPE:
Quality Assurance Project Plan
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.1) #2
001-212
LONG TITLE:
"Quality Assurance Project Plan, Integrated Installation
Stage 3"
AUTHOR:
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
RECIPIENT:
EPA; NHDES
DATE:
August 1989
TYPE:
Quality Assurance Project Plan
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.1) #3 001-286
LONG TITLE:
"Installation Restoration Program, Stage 4 Sampling and A
AUTHOR:
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
RECIPIENT:
EPA; NHDES
DATE:
January 1991
TYPE:
Sampling and Analysis Plan
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.1) #7 001-003
LONG TITLE:
Locations of Background Sampling Locations
AUTHOR:
Arthur L. Ditto
RPM, U.S. Air Force/Pease AFB
RECIPIENT:
Johanna Hunter, RPM
USEPA, Region 1
and
Richard Pease, RPM
NHDES
DATE:
15 June 1992
TYPE:
Letter and Map
SECOND REFERENCE:
Stage 3C Background Data Base
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.1) #8 001-004
LONG TITLE:
Aquifer Testing Proposed for Site 8 (Bedrock Well 08-622)
AUTHOR:
Robert J. Casper
Project Geologist
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
RECIPIENT:
Mark McKenzie
U.S. Air Force/Pease AFB
DATE:
28 August 1992
TYPE:
Letter with Table and Map
SECOND REFERENCE:
Site 8, Bedrock Well 08-622, Zone 5
LOCATION:
ARF
MK01\RPT:00628026.003\site8rod.apd
09/14/94
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.1) #11 001-R1
LONG TITLE:
Installation Restoration Program, Stage 4 Sampling and An
Addendum 3, Pease AFB, NH - Draft
AUTHOR:
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
RECIPIENT:
USAF
DATE:
October 1992
TYPE:
Addendum
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.1) #16 001-003
LONG TITLE:
Recommendations to Characterize Overburden Groundwater Qu
Direction near Site 8 (Zone 5)
AUTHOR:
Jennifer D. Toney, P.G.
Zone Manager
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
RECIPIENT:
Arthur Ditto
U.S. Air Force/Pease AFB
DATE:
5 November 1992
TYPE:
Letter with Map
SECOND REFERENCE:
Site 8, Zone 5
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.1) #17 001-005
LONG TITLE:
Ethylene Dibromide (EDB) Analysis using Modified Method E
AUTHOR:
Edward S. Barnes, P.E., C.I.H.
Project Director
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
RECIPIENT:
Capt Carl Woerhle
U.S. Air Force/Base Closure Division
Air Force Center for Environmental Excellence
DATE:
19 November 1992
TYPE:
Letter with 4 Page Attachment
SECOND REFERENCE:
Analytical Method Recommended for EDB Analysis
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.1) #19 2.24-R.1
LONG TITLE:
Stage 4 Sampling and Analysis Plan, Addendum #3, QAPP Por
AUTHOR:
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
RECIPIENT:
USAF
DATE:
2 December 1992
TYPE:
Addendum
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF
#
MK01\RPT:00628026.003\site8rod.apd
3.2 Sampling and
Analysis Data / Chain of Custo
Forms
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.2) #1 001-027
LONG TITLE:
Volatile Aromatics/Halocarbons by Modified 8010/8020 - Dr
AUTHOR:
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
RECIPIENT:
Pease AFB
DATE:
Unknown
TYPE:
Data
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.2) #2 001-018
LONG TITLE:
Volatile Aromatics/Halocarbons by Modified 8010/8020
AUTHOR:
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
RECIPIENT:
Pease AFB
DATE:
Unknown
TYPE:
Data
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
ARF
None
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.2) #3 001-009
LONG TITLE:
CLP Volatile Organic Analysis, Case No. 15175, SDG No. AX
Analytical Results
AUTHOR:
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
RECIPIENT:
Pease AFB
DATE:
Unknown
TYPE:
Data
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.2) #4 001-037
LONG TITLE:
Pease AFB GWTP Summary Tables
AUTHOR:
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
RECIPIENT:
USAF
DATE:
Unknown
TYPE:
Data
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.2) #5 001-013
LONG TITLE:
Slit Sampling Results Site 8 and Site 34
AUTHOR:
Richard Pease, NHDES
RECIPIENT:
Art Ditto, Pease AFB
DATE:
29 October 1990
TYPE:
Data
SECOND REFERENCE:
Site 8; Site 34
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.2) #6 001-013
LONG TITLE:
Preliminary Survey of Metal Concentrations in New Hampshi
Report
AUTHOR:
New Hampshire Division of Public Health Services, Bu
Assessment
RECIPIENT:
USAF
DATE:
May 1991
TYPE:
Data
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
MK01\RPT:00628026.003\site8rod.apd
09/14/94
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.2) #7 001-D1
LONG TITLE:
Background Soluble Metals Concentrations for Groundwater
AUTHOR:
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
RECIPIENT:
USAF
DATE:
20 November 1991
TYPE:
Letter Report
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
PEA (3.6)
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.2) #8 001-E.1
LONG TITLE:
Tolerance Limits for Background Soils at Pease AFB, NH
AUTHOR:
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
RECIPIENT:
USAF
DATE:
17 April 1992
TYPE:
Letter Report
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.2) #10 001-002
LONG TITLE:
Results of Background Surface Water/Sediment Location Wal
AUTHOR:
Arthur L. Ditto, RPM
U.S. Air Force/Pease AFB
RECIPIENT:
Johanna Hunter, RPM
U.S. EPA, Region 1
DATE:
19 August 1992
TYPE:
Letter
SECOND REFERENCE:
Knights Brook
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.2) #12 001-052
LONG TITLE:
Maximum Detected Concentrations for Unfiltered Groundwate
NH
AUTHOR:
Lee dePersia
Task Manager
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
RECIPIENT:
Arthur Ditto, RPM
U.S. Air Force/Pease AFB
DATE:
25 August 1992
TYPE:
Letter with Attachments (Tables and Graphs)
SECOND REFERENCE:
Charaterization of Inorganic Background Levels
Pease AFB
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.2) #14 001-009
LONG TITLE:
Newington Water Quality Sampling on July 18, 1992 and Ana
on August 28, 1992 (NHDES Sample
#210239-210241)
AUTHOR:
Scott Doane
Hydrogeologist
NHDES
RECIPIENT:
Wayne Wood
428 Newington Road
Newington, NH 03803
DATE:
21 September 1992
TYPE:
Letter with Chain of Custody and Tables
SECOND REFERENCE:
Bedrock Well Serving
MK01\RPT:00628026.003\site8rod.apd
09/14/94
428 Newington Road
Tax Map 51, Lot 09
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.2) #15 001-009
LONG TITLE:
Tissue Sample Letter Report for Great Bay, Bass Pond and
AUTHOR:
Lee R. dePersia
Task Manager
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
Through U.S. Air Force
RECIPIENT:
Johanna Hunter, RPM
U.S. EPA, Region 1
and
Richard Pease, RPM
NHDES
DATE:
9 October 1992
TYPE:
Routing Letters and Letter Report with Map and Table
SECOND REFERENCE:
Great Bay, Bass Pond
McIntyre Brook
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.2) #16 001-009
LONG TITLE:
Thomas Drinking Water Well Sample Analytical Result
AUTHOR:
Kenneth W. Teague, President
Analytics Environmental Laboratory, Inc.
Through U.S. Air Force/Arthur Ditto
RECIPIENT:
Evelyn Thomas
509 Newington Road
Newington, NH 03801
DATE:
23 November 1992
TYPE:
Transmittal Letters with Attachments (Tables, Questionnai
SECOND REFERENCE:
Artesian Well
at 509 Newington Rd.
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.2) #17 001-005
LONG TITLE:
Results of Sampling Frink Estate Well and Spring
AUTHOR:
USAF
RECIPIENT:
Peggy Lamson, Newington Board of Selectmen
DATE:
15 January 1993
TYPE:
Letter with Attachment
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF (Section 3.2 Binder)
#
MK01\RPT:00628026.003\site8rod.apd
3.3 Work Plan
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.3) #1 001-144
LONG TITLE:
"Work Plan for the Installation Restoration Program, Stag
AUTHOR:
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
RECIPIENT:
EPA, NHDES
DATE:
August 1989
TYPE:
Work Plan
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
None
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.3) #2
001-019
LONG TITLE:
"Installation Restoration Program, Stage 3C, Treatability
IRP Sites 8 and 34"
AUTHOR:
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
RECIPIENT:
EPA, NHDES
DATE:
May 1991
TYPE:
Work Plan
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.3) #3 001-028
LONG TITLE:
"Installation Restoration Program, Stage 3C, Action Plan"
AUTHOR:
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
RECIPIENT:
EPA, NHDES
DATE:
May 1991
TYPE:
Operations Plan
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.3) #4 001-258
LONG TITLE:
"Installation Restoration Program, Stage 4 Work Plan"
AUTHOR:
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
RECIPIENT:
EPA, NHDES
DATE:
January 1991
TYPE:
Work Plan
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.3) #5 001-213
LONG TITLE:
"Work Plan for the Intergrated Installation Restoration P
Labelled Stage 2 Work Plan"
AUTHOR:
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
RECIPIENT:
EPA, NHDES
DATE:
Semptember 1987
TYPE:
Work Plan
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.3) #6 001-GL.2
LONG TITLE:
Installation Restoration Program, Stage 4 Work Plan Adden
NH - Draft
AUTHOR:
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
RECIPIENT:
USAF
DATE:
September 1991
TYPE:
Addendum
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
MK01\RPT:00628026.003\site8rod.apd
09/14/94
LOCATION:
ARF, IR
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.3) #7 001-G5
LONG TITLE:
Installation Restoration Program, Stage 4 Work Plan Adden
Pease AFB, NH - Draft
AUTHOR:
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
RECIPIENT:
USAF
DATE:
March 1992
TYPE:
Addendum
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF, IR
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.3) #8 001-B4
LONG TITLE:
Installation Restoration Program, Stage 3C, Operations Pl
NH - Draft
AUTHOR:
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
RECIPIENT:
USAF
DATE:
May 1991
TYPE:
Plan
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF, IR
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.3) #9 001-3.5
LONG TITLE:
Installation Restoration Program, Stage 4, Work Plan Adde
NH
AUTHOR:
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
RECIPIENT:
USAF
DATE:
June 1992
TYPE:
Addendum
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF, IR
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.3) #12 001-004
LONG TITLE:
Groundwater Modeling Process Outline
AUTHOR:
Lee dePersia
Task Manager
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
RECIPIENT:
Arthur Ditto, RPM
U.S. Air Force/Pease AFB
DATE:
2 October 1992
TYPE:
Letter
SECOND REFERENCE:
Groundwater Modeling
LOCATION:
ARF, IR
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.3) #13 001-C.31
LONG TITLE:
Installation Restoration Program, Stage 5 Health and Safe
NH - Draft
AUTHOR:
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
RECIPIENT:
USAF
DATE:
October 1992
TYPE:
Health and Safety Plan
SECOND REFERENCE:
Groundwater Modeling
LOCATION:
ARF, IR
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.3) #15 001-F
LONG TITLE:
U.S. Air Force Installation Restoration Program Pease AFB
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
USAF
Pease AFB
Plan
MK01\RPT:00628026.003\site8rod.apd
09/14/94
DATE:
January 1994
TYPE:
Monitoring Plan
SECOND REFERENCE:
Groundwater Monitoring
LOCATION:
ARF (Zone 7 Shelf)
#
MK01\RPT:00628026.003\site8rod.apd
3.4 Preliminary RI Field Work Reports
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.4) #1 001-173
LONG TITLE:
"Interim Technical Report No. 1 for the Installation Rest
2, Volume I"
AUTHOR:
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
RECIPIENT:
EPA, NHDES
DATE:
February 1988
TYPE:
Technical Report
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF, IR
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.4) #2 001-147
LONG TITLE:
"Interim Technical Report No. 1 for the Installation Rest
2, Volume II - Appendices"
AUTHOR:
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
RECIPIENT:
EPA, NHDES
DATE:
January 1988
TYPE:
Technical Report - Appendices
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF, IR
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.4) #3 001-214
LONG TITLE:
"Interim Technical Report No. 2 for the Installation Rest
Stage2, Volume I"
AUTHOR:
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
RECIPIENT:
EPA, NHDES
DATE:
August 1988
TYPE:
Technical Report
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF, IR
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.4) #4 001-696
LONG TITLE:
"Interim Technical Report No. 2 for the Installation Rest
2, Volume II - Appendices (Sample
Tracking Information, Analytical Results)"
AUTHOR:
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
RECIPIENT:
EPA, NHDES
DATE:
August 1988
TYPE:
Technical Report - Appendices (Sample Tracking Informatio
Results)
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF, IR
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.4) #5 001-838
LONG TITLE:
"Interim Technical Report No. 2 for the Installation Rest
2, Volume III - Appendices (Analytical
Results)"
AUTHOR:
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
RECIPIENT:
EPA, NHDES
DATE:
August 1988
TYPE:
Technical Report - Appendices (Analytical Results)
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF, IR
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.4) #6
001-722
LONG TITLE:
"Interim Technical Report No. 2 for the Installation Rest
2, Volume IV - Appendices (Analytical
Results)"
AUTHOR:
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
RECIPIENT:
EPA, NHDES
MK01\RPT:00628026.003\site8rod.apd
09/14/94
DATE:
August 1988
TYPE:
Technical Report - Appendices (Analytical Results)
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF, IR
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.4) #7 001-289
LONG TITLE:
"Interim Technical Report No. 2 for the Installation Rest
2,Volume V - Appendices (Field
Geological, Geotechnical, and Hydrogeological Data)"
AUTHOR:
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
RECIPIENT:
EPA, NHDES
DATE:
August 1988
TYPE:
Technical Report - Appendices (Field Geological, Geotechn
Hydrogeological Data)
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF, IR
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.4) #8 001-106
LONG TITLE:
"Interim Technical Report No. 3 for the Installation Rest
2, Volume I"
AUTHOR:
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
RECIPIENT:
EPA, NHDES
DATE:
February 1989
TYPE:
Technical Report
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF, IR
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.4) #9 001-658
LONG TITLE:
"Interim Technical Report No. 3 for the Installation Rest
2, Volume II - Appendices"
AUTHOR:
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
RECIPIENT:
EPA, NHDES
DATE:
February 1989
TYPE:
Technical Report - Appendices
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF, IR
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.4) #10 001-198
LONG TITLE:
"Interim Technical Report No. 4 for the Installation Rest
2, Volume I"
AUTHOR:
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
RECIPIENT:
EPA, NHDES
DATE:
April 1989
TYPE:
Technical Report
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF, IR
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.4) #11 001-770
LONG TITLE:
"Interim Technical Report No. 4 for the Installation Rest
2, Volume II - Appendices"
AUTHOR:
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
RECIPIENT:
EPA, NHDES
DATE:
April 1989
TYPE:
Technical Report - Appendices
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF, IR
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.4) #12 001-568
LONG TITLE:
"Interim Technical Report No. 4 for the Installation Rest
2, Volume III - Appendices"
AUTHOR:
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
MK01\RPT:00628026.003\site8rod.apd
09/14/94
RECIPIENT:
EPA, NHDES
DATE:
April 1989
TYPE:
Technical Report - Appendices
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF, IR
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.4) #13 001-770
LONG TITLE:
"Interim Technical Report No. 4 for the Installation Rest
2, Volume IV - Appendices"
AUTHOR:
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
RECIPIENT:
EPA, NHDES
DATE:
April 1989
TYPE:
Technical Report - Appendices
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
None
ARF, IR
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.4) #14 001-1,150
LONG TITLE:
"Interim Technical Report No. 4 for the Installation Rest
2, Volume V - Appendices"
AUTHOR:
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
RECIPIENT:
EPA, NHDES
DATE:
April 1989
TYPE:
Technical Report - Appendices
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF, IR
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.4) #15 001-729
LONG TITLE:
"Interim Technical Report No. 4 for the Installation Rest
2, Volume VI - Appendices"
AUTHOR:
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
RECIPIENT:
EPA, NHDES
DATE:
April 1989
TYPE:
Technical Report - Appendices
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF, IR
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.4) #16 001-803
LONG TITLE:
"Interim Technical Report No. 4 for the Installation Rest
2, Volume VII - Appendices"
AUTHOR:
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
RECIPIENT:
EPA, NHDES
DATE:
April 1989
TYPE:
Technical Report - Appendices
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF, IR
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.4) #17 001-251
LONG TITLE:
" Installation Restoration Program, Stage 2, Draft Final
AUTHOR:
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
RECIPIENT:
EPA, NHDES
DATE:
July
1990
TYPE:
Technical Report
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF, IR
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.4) #18 001-452
LONG TITLE:
"Installation Restoration Program, Stage 2, Draft Final R
AUTHOR:
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
MK01\RPT:00628026.003\site8rod.apd
09/14/94
RECIPIENT:
EPA, NHDES
DATE:
July 1990
TYPE:
Technical Report
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF, IR
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.4) #19 001-621
LONG TITLE:
"Installation Restoration Program, Stage 2, Draft Final R
Volume I"
AUTHOR:
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
RECIPIENT:
EPA, NHDES
DATE:
July
1990
TYPE:
Technical Report - Appendices
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF, IR
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.4) #20 001-420
LONG TITLE:
"Installation Restoration Program, Stage 2, Draft Final R
Volume II"
AUTHOR:
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
RECIPIENT:
EPA, NHDES
DATE:
July
1990
TYPE:
Technical Report - Appendices
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF, IR
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.4) #21 001-658
LONG TITLE:
"Installation Restoration Program, Stage 2, Draft Final R
Volume III"
AUTHOR:
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
RECIPIENT:
EPA, NHDES
DATE:
July
1990
TYPE:
Technical Report - Appendices
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF, IR
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.4) #22 001-688
LONG TITLE:
"Installation Restoration Program, Stage 2, Draft Final R
Volume IV"
AUTHOR:
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
RECIPIENT:
EPA, NHDES
DATE:
July
1990
TYPE:
Technical Report - Appendices
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF, IR
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.4) #23 001-261
LONG TITLE:
"Installation Restoration Program, Stage 2, Draft Final R
Volume V"
AUTHOR:
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
RECIPIENT:
EPA, NHDES
DATE:
July
1990
TYPE:
Technical Report - Appendices
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF, IR
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.4) #24 001-340
LONG TITLE:
"Installation Restoration Program, Stage 2, Draft Final R
Summary Analytical Tables"
AUTHOR:
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
MK01\RPT:00628026.003\site8rod.apd
09/14/94
RECIPIENT:
EPA, NHDES
DATE:
July
1990
TYPE:
Technical Report - Appendices
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF, IR
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.4) #25 001-007
LONG TITLE:
"Geophysical Survey Letter Report, Stage 3"
AUTHOR:
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
RECIPIENT:
EPA, NHDES
DATE:
19 October 1989
TYPE:
Letter Report
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.4) #27 001-014
LONG TITLE:
"Recovery Well Selection Letter Report:
AUTHOR:
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
RECIPIENT:
EPA, NHDES
DATE:
11 May 1990
TYPE:
Letter Report
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF
#
IRP Site 8"
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.4) #31 001-007
LONG TITLE:
"Site 8 Follow-on Letter Report"
AUTHOR:
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
RECIPIENT:
EPA, NHDES
DATE:
9 October 1990
TYPE:
Letter Report
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.4) #34 001-062
LONG TITLE:
"Installation Restoration Program, Stage 3, IRP Site 8 Co
Letter Report"
AUTHOR:
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
RECIPIENT:
EPA, NHDES
DATE:
February 1991
TYPE:
Technical Report
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.4) #38 001-041
LONG TITLE:
Pease AFB Monitor Well Inventory and Inspection
AUTHOR:
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
RECIPIENT:
USAF
DATE:
7 August 1992
TYPE:
Report
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
ARF
None
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.4) #39 001-D
LONG TITLE:
Background Values for Soil, Groundwater, Surface Water an
Pease Air Force Base
AUTHOR:
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
RECIPIENT:
USAF
MK01\RPT:00628026.003\site8rod.apd
09/14/94
DATE:
26 February 1993
TYPE:
Letter
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.4) #40 001-Map 6
LONG TITLE:
Off Base Well Inventory Letter Report for Pease AFB
AUTHOR:
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
RECIPIENT:
USAF
DATE:
17 September 1992
TYPE:
Letter Report
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF
#
MK01\RPT:00628026.003\site8rod.apd
09/14/94
3.5 Remedial Investigation (RI) Reports
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.5) #16 001-B.12
LONG TITLE:
Sampling Locations and Results Drainage Area Letter Repor
AUTHOR:
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
RECIPIENT:
USAF
DATE:
May 1992
TYPE:
Report
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.5) #21 001-C
LONG TITLE:
Installation Restoration Program, Stage 3C, IRP Site 8 Re
Pease AFB, NH, Appendix C - Draft
AUTHOR:
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
RECIPIENT:
USAF
DATE:
July 1992
TYPE:
Appendix
SECOND REFERENCE:
Site 8
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.5) #22 001-G
LONG TITLE:
Installation Restoration Program, Stage 3C, IRP Site 8 Re
Pease AFB, NH, Appendices D-G - Draft
AUTHOR:
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
RECIPIENT:
USAF
DATE:
July 1992
TYPE:
Appendices
SECOND REFERENCE:
Site 8
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.5) #23 001-K1
LONG TITLE:
Installation Restoration Program, Stage 3C, IRP Site 8 Re
Pease AFB, NH, Appendix K, Part 1 of
2 - Draft
AUTHOR:
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
RECIPIENT:
USAF
DATE:
July 1992
TYPE:
Appendix
SECOND REFERENCE:
Site 8
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.5) #24 001-K2
LONG TITLE:
Installation Restoration Program, Stage 3C, IRP Site 8 Re
Pease AFB, NH, Appendix K, Part 2 of
2 - Draft
AUTHOR:
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
RECIPIENT:
USAF
DATE:
July 1992
TYPE:
Appendix
SECOND REFERENCE:
Site 8
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.5) #25 001-I1
LONG TITLE:
Installation Restoration Program, Stage 3C,IRP Site 8 Rem
Pease AFB, NH, Appendices H-I1 - Draft
AUTHOR:
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
RECIPIENT:
USAF
MK01\RPT:00628026.003\site8rod.apd
09/14/94
DATE:
July 1992
TYPE:
Appendices
SECOND REFERENCE:
Site 8
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.5) #26 001-I2
LONG TITLE:
Installation Restoration Program, Stage 3C, IRP Site 8 Re
Pease AFB, NH, Appendices H-I2 - Draft
AUTHOR:
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
RECIPIENT:
USAF
DATE:
July 1992
TYPE:
Appendix
SECOND REFERENCE:
Site 8
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.5) #27 001-O.31
LONG TITLE:
Installation Restoration Program, Stage 3C, IRP Site 8 Re
Pease AFB, NH, Appendices L-O - Draft
AUTHOR:
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
RECIPIENT:
USAF
DATE:
July 1992
TYPE:
Appendices
SECOND REFERENCE:
Site 8
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.5) #28 001-J873
LONG TITLE:
Installation Restoration Program, Stage 3C, IRP Site 8 Re
Pease AFB, NH, Appendix J, Part 1 of
4 - Draft
AUTHOR:
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
RECIPIENT:
USAF
DATE:
July 1992
TYPE:
Appendix
SECOND REFERENCE:
Site 8
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.5) #29 J874-J1752
LONG TITLE:
Installation Restoration Program, Stage 3C, IRP Site 8 Re
Pease AFB, NH, Appendix J, Part 2 of
4 - Draft
AUTHOR:
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
RECIPIENT:
USAF
DATE:
July
1992
TYPE:
Appendix
SECOND REFERENCE:
Site 8
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.5) #30 J1753-J2661
LONG TITLE:
Installation Restoration Program, Stage 3C, IRP Site 8 Re
Pease AFB, NH, Appendix J, Part 3 of
4 - Draft
AUTHOR:
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
RECIPIENT:
USAF
DATE:
July 1992
TYPE:
Appendix
SECOND REFERENCE:
Site 8
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.5) #31 J2662-J3221
MK01\RPT:00628026.003\site8rod.apd
09/14/94
LONG TITLE:
Installation Restoration Program, Stage 3C, IRP Site 8 Re
Pease AFB, NH, Appendix J, Part 4 of
4 - Draft
AUTHOR:
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
RECIPIENT:
USAF
DATE:
JULY 1992
TYPE:
Appendix
SECOND REFERENCE:
Site 8
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.5) #36 A-C
LONG TITLE:
Installation Restoration Program, Stage 4, Site Character
Zone 5, Pease AFB, NH Technical Report
and Apprendices A-C - Draft
AUTHOR:
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
RECIPIENT:
USAF
DATE:
October 1992
TYPE:
Report
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.5) #37 D1-D2
LONG TITLE:
Installation Restoration Program, Stage 4, Site Character
Zone 5, Pease AFB, NH Appendix D Draft
AUTHOR:
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
RECIPIENT:
USAF
DATE:
October 1992
TYPE:
Appendices
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.5) #38 E-F
LONG TITLE:
Installation Restoration Program, Stage 4, Site Character
Zone 5, Pease AFB, NH Technical Report
and Apprendices E-F - Draft
AUTHOR:
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
RECIPIENT:
USAF
DATE:
October 1992
TYPE:
Report
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.5) #39 001-L
LONG TITLE:
Installation Restoration Program, Stage 3C, IRP Site 8 Re
Pease AFB, NH Appendix L - Draft Final
AUTHOR:
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
RECIPIENT:
USAF
DATE:
November 1992
TYPE:
Appendix
SECOND REFERENCE:
Site 8
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.5) #40 001-K.29
LONG TITLE:
Installation Restoration Program, Stage 3C, IRP Site 8 Re
Pease AFB, NH Appendices B, C, D, G,
H, J and K - Draft Final
AUTHOR:
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
RECIPIENT:
USAF
DATE:
TYPE:
November 1992
Appendices
MK01\RPT:00628026.003\site8rod.apd
09/14/94
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
Site 8
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.5) #41 001-6.4.2
LONG TITLE:
Installation Restoration Program, Stage 3C, IRP Site 8 Re
Pease AFB, NH Figures - Draft Final
AUTHOR:
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
RECIPIENT:
USAF
DATE:
November 1992
TYPE:
Figures
SECOND REFERENCE:
Site 8
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.5) #42 001-7.8
LONG TITLE:
Installation Restoration Program, Stage 3C, IRP Site 8 Re
Pease AFB, NH Technical Report - Draft
Final
AUTHOR:
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
RECIPIENT:
USAF
DATE:
November 1992
TYPE:
Report
SECOND REFERENCE:
Site 8
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.5) #55 001-Acr.4
LONG TITLE:
U.S. Air Force Installation Restoration Program, Pease Ai
Remedial Investigation Report Text
DRAFT FINAL
AUTHOR:
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
RECIPIENT:
USAF
DATE:
August 1993
TYPE:
Report
SECOND REFERENCE:
Zone 5
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.5) #56 001-Plate 8
LONG TITLE:
U.S. Air Force Installation Restoration Program, Pease AF
Investigation Report Figures DRAFT
FINAL
AUTHOR:
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
RECIPIENT:
USAF
DATE:
August 1993
TYPE:
Figures
SECOND REFERENCE:
Zone 5
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.5) #57 001-C
LONG TITLE:
Installation Restoration Program, Stage 4 IRP Zone 5 Reme
Pease Air Force Base, NH 03803,
Apprendices A, B & C
AUTHOR:
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
RECIPIENT:
USAF
DATE:
February 1993
TYPE:
Appendices
SECOND REFERENCE:
Zone 5
LOCATION:
ARF
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.5) #58 001-L.6-2
MK01\RPT:00628026.003\site8rod.apd
09/14/94
LONG TITLE:
U.S. Air Force Installation Restoration Program Pease AFB
Investigation Report Appendices B, D, E,
F, G, and L DRAFT FINAL
AUTHOR:
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
RECIPIENT:
USAF
DATE:
August 1993
TYPE:
Appendices
SECOND REFERENCE:
Zone 5
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.5) #59 001-I
LONG TITLE:
U.S. Air Force Installation Restoration Program Pease AFB
Investigation Report Appendices H and I
DRAFT FINAL
AUTHOR:
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
RECIPIENT:
USAF
DATE:
August 1993
TYPE:
Appendices
SECOND REFERENCE:
Zone 5
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.5) #60 001-K
LONG TITLE:
U.S. Air Force Installation Restoration Program Pease AFB
Investigation Report Appendices J and K
DRAFT FINAL
AUTHOR:
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
RECIPIENT:
USAF
DATE:
August 1993
TYPE:
Appendices
SECOND REFERENCE:
Zone 5
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.5) #61 001-J.2
LONG TITLE:
Installation Restoration Program, Stage 4 IRP Zone 5 Reme
Pease Air Force Base, NH 03803,
Appendices J Part 2 of 3
AUTHOR:
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
RECIPIENT:
USAF
DATE:
February 1993
TYPE:
Appendix
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
ARF
Zone 5
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.5) #62 001-J.3
LONG TITLE:
Installation Restoration Program, Stage 4 IRP Zone 5 Reme
Pease Air Force Base, NH 03803,
Appendices J Part 3 of 3
AUTHOR:
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
RECIPIENT:
USAF
DATE:
February 1993
TYPE:
Appendix
SECOND REFERENCE:
Zone 5
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.5) #63 001-M
LONG TITLE:
Installation Restoration Program, Stage 4 IRP Zone 5 Reme
Pease Air Force Base, NH 03803,
Appendices K, L & M
AUTHOR:
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
RECIPIENT:
USAF
DATE:
February 1993
MK01\RPT:00628026.003\site8rod.apd
09/14/94
TYPE:
Appendices
SECOND REFERENCE:
Zone 5
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.5) #64 001-N
LONG TITLE:
Installation Restoration Program, Stage 4 IRP Zone 5 Reme
Pease Air Forces Base, NH 03803,
Appendix N
AUTHOR:
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
RECIPIENT:
USAF
DATE:
February 1993
TYPE:
Appendix
SECOND REFERENCE:
Zone 5
LOCATION:
ARF
#
MK01\RPT:00628026.003\site8rod.apd
3.6 RI Correspondence
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.6) #1 001-001
LONG TITLE:
"Comments Regarding the Work Plan for the IRP Stage 2"
AUTHOR:
State of New Hampshire, Department of Environmental
RECIPIENT:
Air Force
DATE:
27 July 1987
TYPE:
Comments Serving 3.4 (Preliminary RI Field Work Reports)
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.6) #2 001-006
LONG TITLE:
"Letter Regarding IRP, Stage 2"
AUTHOR:
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
RECIPIENT:
Air Force
DATE:
11 November 1987
TYPE:
Letter Serving 3.4 (Preliminary RI Field Work Reports)
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.6) #3 001-001
LONG TITLE:
"Letter Stating Conformance of the Stage 2, Quality Assur
With Air Force IRP Practices"
AUTHOR:
State of New Hampshire, Department of Environmental
RECIPIENT:
Air Force
DATE:
12 November 1987
TYPE:
Letter Serving 3.4 (Preliminary RI Field Work Reports)
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.6) #4 001-001
LONG TITLE:
"Letter Regarding the Suspect Fire Training Area"
AUTHOR:
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
RECIPIENT:
Air Force
DATE:
16 December 1987
TYPE:
Letter Serving 3.4 (Preliminary RI Field Work Reports)
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.6) #6 001-001
LONG TITLE:
"Letter Concerning Drilling Program"
AUTHOR:
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
RECIPIENT:
Air Force
DATE:
20 October 1988
TYPE:
Letter Serving 3.4 (Preliminary RI Field Work Reports)
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.6) #9 001-002
LONG TITLE:
"Letter Concerning Disposal of Drill Cuttings From Stage
AUTHOR:
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
RECIPIENT:
Air Force
DATE:
2 October 1989
TYPE:
Letter Serving 3.4 (Preliminary RI Field Work Reports)
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF
#
MK01\RPT:00628026.003\site8rod.apd
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.6) #10 001-003
LONG TITLE:
"Review Comments on the Phase II, Stage 2 IRP, Draft Fina
AUTHOR:
State of New Hampshire, Department of Environmental
RECIPIENT:
Air Force
DATE:
28 February 1990
TYPE:
Review Comments on Phase II, Stage 2 IRP Serving 3.4 (Pre
Work Reports)
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.6) #11 001-011
LONG TITLE:
"Review Comments for the Pease AFB, Phase II, Stage 2 IRP
Report"
AUTHOR:
U.S. EPA
RECIPIENT:
Air Force
DATE:
7 March 1990
TYPE:
Review Comments Serving 3.4 (Preliminary RI Field Work Re
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.6) #12 001-010
LONG TITLE:
"Review Comments Regarding the IRP, Stage 2 Draft Final R
1989)"
AUTHOR:
U.S. Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and At
Administration
RECIPIENT:
Air Force via EPA
DATE:
7 March 1990
TYPE:
Review Comments Serving 3.4 (Preliminary RI Field Work Re
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.6) #13 001-020
LONG TITLE:
"Review Comments to the IRP Stage 2 RI/FS Draft Report"
AUTHOR:
Department of the Air Force
RECIPIENT:
Roy F. Weston, Inc./Air Force
DATE:
15 March 1990
TYPE:
Review Comments Serving 3.4 (Preliminary RI Field Work Re
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.6) #14 001-004
LONG TITLE:
"Sampling Data for Off-Site Sampling at Pease AFB"
AUTHOR:
State of New Hampshire, Water Supply and Pollution C
RECIPIENT:
Air Force
DATE:
5 July 1990
TYPE:
Sampling Data
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.6) #15 001-010
LONG TITLE:
"Pease AFB, Site 8 Sampling Data"
AUTHOR:
State of New Hampshire, Department of Environmental
RECIPIENT:
Air Force, EPA
DATE:
September 1990
TYPE:
Sampling Data
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
MK01\RPT:00628026.003\site8rod.apd
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.6) #16 001-003
LONG TITLE:
"Off-Base Sampling at Pease AFB"
AUTHOR:
State of New Hampshire, Department of Environmental
RECIPIENT:
Air Force
DATE:
25 October 1990
TYPE:
Sampling Results
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.6) #17 001-013
LONG TITLE:
"Split Sampling Results, Site 8 and Site 34"
AUTHOR:
State of New Hampshire, Department of Environmental
RECIPIENT:
Air Force
DATE:
29 October 1990
TYPE:
Sampling Results
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.6) #18 001-065
LONG TITLE:
"Sampling Results from Pease AFB, Newington, Portsmouth"
AUTHOR:
State of New Hampshire, Department of Environmental
RECIPIENT:
Air Force
DATE:
17 January 1991
TYPE:
Sampling Data
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.6) #19 001-002
LONG TITLE:
"Installation Restoration Program (IRP) at Pease AFB, NH"
AUTHOR:
Department of the Air Force
RECIPIENT:
Air Force
DATE:
8 March 1989
TYPE:
Memorandum - Pertaining to RI
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.6) #20 001-002
LONG TITLE:
"Work Plan for the IRP Stage 3 and ITR #4"
AUTHOR:
Department of the Air Force
RECIPIENT:
Air Force
DATE:
3 April 1989
TYPE:
Memorandum - Pertaining to RI
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.6) #21 001-007
LONG TITLE:
"Consolidated Comments to the IRP Stage 3 Work Plan for P
Base, NH"
AUTHOR:
Department of the Air Force
RECIPIENT:
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
DATE:
1 June 1989
TYPE:
Review Comments - Pertaining to RI
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
MK01\RPT:00628026.003\site8rod.apd
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.6) #22 001-001
LONG TITLE:
"Review Comments Regarding the Work Plan and QAPP - Stage
AUTHOR:
State of New Hampshire, Department of Environmental
RECIPIENT:
Air Force
DATE:
16 June 1989
TYPE:
Review Comments - Pertaining to RI
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.6) #23 001-008
LONG TITLE:
"Stage 3 Work Plan - Response to Comments"
AUTHOR:
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
RECIPIENT:
Air Force
DATE:
29 June 1989
TYPE:
Reponse to Comments - Pertaining to RI
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.6) #24 001-008
LONG TITLE:
"Consolidated Comments to the IRP Stage 3 Quality Assuran
(QAPP) for Pease Air Force Base, NH"
AUTHOR:
Department of the Air Force
RECIPIENT:
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
DATE:
29 June 1989
TYPE:
Review Comments - Pertaining to RI
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.6) #25 001-009
LONG TITLE:
"Special Notification concerning the results of sampling
Site 8"
AUTHOR:
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
RECIPIENT:
Air Force
DATE:
1 February 1990
TYPE:
Letter - Pertaining to RI
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.6) #26 001-002
LONG TITLE:
"Followup to Special Notification (1 February 1990) conce
samples from Well 562A at Site 8"
AUTHOR:
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
RECIPIENT:
Air Force
DATE:
16 February 1990
TYPE:
Letter - Pertaining to RI
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.6) #27 001-002
LONG TITLE:
"Letter summarizing discussions between Roy F. Weston, In
Hampshire Department of Environmental
Services concerning on-site handling and disposal of soil and
during drilling, development, purging, and
pump testing of wells"
AUTHOR:
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
RECIPIENT:
Air Force
DATE:
12 March 1990
MK01\RPT:00628026.003\site8rod.apd
09/14/94
TYPE:
Letter - Pertaining to 3.4
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.6) #29 001-007
LONG TITLE:
"Review Comments on the Stage 3 Work Plan for the IRP"
AUTHOR:
U.S. EPA
RECIPIENT:
Air Force
DATE:
7 June 1990
TYPE:
Review Comments - Pertaining to RI
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.6) #31 001-002
LONG TITLE:
"Letter regarding well installation modification"
AUTHOR:
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
RECIPIENT:
Air Force
DATE:
5 July 1990
TYPE:
Letter
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.6) #32 001-004
LONG TITLE:
"Letter regarding procedures used in installing and aband
632"
AUTHOR:
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
RECIPIENT:
Air Force
DATE:
8 August 1990
TYPE:
Letter
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.6) #33 001-001
LONG TITLE:
"Letter regarding June 1990 Pickering Spring sampling res
AUTHOR:
State of New Hampshire, Department of Environmental
RECIPIENT:
Peggy Lamson, Selectman & Town Health Officer, Newington,
DATE:
15 August 1990
TYPE:
Letter
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.6) #34 001-004
LONG TITLE:
"Letter regarding the disposal of clean water, drilling m
AUTHOR:
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
RECIPIENT:
Air Force
DATE:
25 September 1990
TYPE:
Letter
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.6) #35 001-002
LONG TITLE:
"Letter regarding procedures for handling solids and liqu
construction and soil borings"
AUTHOR:
State of New Hampshire, Department of Environmental
RECIPIENT:
Air Force
DATE:
25 September 1990
MK01\RPT:00628026.003\site8rod.apd
TYPE:
Letter
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
ARF
None
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.6) #36 001-006
LONG TITLE:
"Letter regarding Pease Air Force Base well installation
AUTHOR:
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
RECIPIENT:
Air Force
DATE:
26 September 1990
TYPE:
Letter
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.6) #38 001-002
LONG TITLE:
"Information Letter 3 - Documenting discussion on 25 Octo
AUTHOR:
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
RECIPIENT:
Air Force
DATE:
29 October 1990
TYPE:
Letter
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.6) #39 001-002
LONG TITLE:
"Letter regarding the disposal of clean soil cuttings and
AUTHOR:
Department of the Air Forces
RECIPIENT:
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
DATE:
1 November 1990
TYPE:
Letter
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.6) #41 001-008
LONG TITLE:
"Response to Comments - Draft Final Stage 4 Work Plan and
Analysis Plan"
AUTHOR:
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
RECIPIENT:
Air Force
DATE:
7 February 1991
TYPE:
Letter/Response to Comments
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.6) #43 001-004
LONG TITLE:
"Issues Needing Resolution Prior to the Upcoming Field Ef
AUTHOR:
U.S. EPA
RECIPIENT:
Air Force
DATE:
10 April 1991
TYPE:
Letter
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.6) #46 001-038
LONG TITLE:
"Response to Comments - Stage 4 Work Plan and SAP"
AUTHOR:
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
RECIPIENT:
Air Force
DATE:
28 September 1990
MK01\RPT:00628026.003\site8rod.apd
TYPE:
Response to Comments
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.6) #47 001-011
LONG TITLE:
"Review comments on the Installation Restoration Plan (IR
Plan and Sampling and Analysis Plan"
AUTHOR:
State of New Hampshire, Department of Environmental
RECIPIENT:
Air Force
DATE:
16 October 1990
TYPE:
Review Comments
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.6) #48 001-017
LONG TITLE:
"The Town of Newington review comments on the IRP Stage 4
AUTHOR:
The Town of Newington
RECIPIENT:
Air Force
DATE:
29 October 1990
TYPE:
Review Comments
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.6) #49 001-076
LONG TITLE:
"EPA technical review of the Draft IRP Stage 4 Work Plan
Analysis Plan for Pease Air Force Base"
AUTHOR:
U.S. EPA
RECIPIENT:
Air Force
DATE:
2 November 1990
TYPE:
Review Comments
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.6) #50 001-002
LONG TITLE:
"Response to Air Force questions on state comments to the
AUTHOR:
State of New Hampshire, Department of Environmental
RECIPIENT:
Air Force
DATE:
3 December 1990
TYPE:
Response to Air Force questions on State of New Hampshire
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.6) #51 001-007
LONG TITLE:
"Response to EPA comments on the Pease AFB Stage 4 Work P
and Analysis Plan"
AUTHOR:
U.S. Air Force
RECIPIENT:
EPA
DATE:
10 December 1990
TYPE:
Air Force responses to EPA comments
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.6) #52 001-008
LONG TITLE:
"Air Force Response to NHDES comments - Draft Final Stage
Sampling and Analysis Plan"
AUTHOR:
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
RECIPIENT:
Air Force
DATE:
7 February 1991
MK01\RPT:00628026.003\site8rod.apd
09/14/94
TYPE:
Response to Comments
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.6) #53 001-008
LONG TITLE:
"EPA initial approval of the IRP Stage 4 Work Plan and Sa
Plan"
AUTHOR:
U.S. EPA
RECIPIENT:
Air Force
DATE:
13 March 1991
TYPE:
Letter concerning EPA initial approval of Stage 4 Work Pl
Analysis Plan
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.6) #54 001-058
LONG TITLE:
"Air Force Response to EPA comments on the Stage 4 Work P
Sampling and Analysis Plan"
AUTHOR:
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
RECIPIENT:
EPA
DATE:
1991
TYPE:
Response to Comments
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.6) #55 001-003
LONG TITLE:
Off-Base Sampling at Pease Air Force Base
AUTHOR:
Richard Pease, NHDES
RECIPIENT:
Art Ditto, Pease AFB
DATE:
25 October 1990
TYPE:
Letter
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.6) #56 001-001
LONG TITLE:
EPA Concerns
AUTHOR:
U.S. Air Force - Internal Note
RECIPIENT:
Art Ditto/USAF/Pease AFB
DATE:
8 April 1991
TYPE:
Internal Record of Phone Conversation with EPA and NHDES
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.6) #57 001-004
LONG TITLE:
Issues Needing Resolution Prior to Upcoming Field Efforts
AUTHOR:
Johanna Hunter, RPM
U.S. EPA, Region 1
RECIPIENT:
Arthur Ditto, RPM
USAF, Pease AFB
DATE:
10 April 1991
TYPE:
Letter
SECOND REFERENCE:
Stage 3 and 4 Work Plan (3.3)
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.6) #58 001-002
LONG TITLE:
Review of Risk Assessment Data and Sampling Procedures
AUTHOR:
Johanna Hunter, USEPA
MK01\RPT:00628026.003\site8rod.apd
RECIPIENT:
Arthur Ditto, Pease AFB
DATE:
16 April 1991
TYPE:
Letter
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.6) #59 001-067
LONG TITLE:
Concerns about Analytical Methods
AUTHOR:
USAF
RECIPIENT:
USAF
Johanna Hunter, USEPA
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
DATE:
23 April 1991
TYPE:
Fax with Attachments
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.6) #60 001-001
LONG TITLE:
Surface Water and Sedeiment Sampling Locations
AUTHOR:
Arthur Ditto, RPM
USAF/Pease AFB
RECIPIENT:
Johanna Hunter, RPM
U.S. EPA, Region 1
DATE:
24 April 1991
TYPE:
Letter (Transmittal)
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.6) #61 001-008
LONG TITLE:
Field Oversight Coordination
AUTHOR:
Johanna Hunter, USEPA
RECIPIENT:
Arthur Ditto, Pease AFB
DATE:
29 April 1991
TYPE:
Letter
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.6) #62 001-004
LONG TITLE:
Preliminary Sampling Schedule for Stage 3C IRP Sites thro
1991
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
USAF
Johanna Hunter, USEPA
Richard Pease, NHDES
DATE:
02 May 1991
TYPE:
Fax
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.6) #63 001-003
LONG TITLE:
Review of April 25, 1991 Revised Analytical Methods
AUTHOR:
Johanna Hunter, USEPA
RECIPIENT:
Art Ditto, Pease AFB
DATE:
08 May 1991
TYPE:
Letter
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF
MK01\RPT:00628026.003\site8rod.apd
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.6) #64 001-002
LONG TITLE:
Review of April 25, 1991 Revised Analytical Methods
AUTHOR:
Johanna Hunter, USEPA
RECIPIENT:
Art Ditto, Pease AFB
DATE:
08 May 1991
TYPE:
Letter
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.6) #65 001-005
LONG TITLE:
Field Performance Review of Weston Activities, Pease Air
Hampshire
AUTHOR:
Mitre Corporation
RECIPIENT:
Dennis Lundquist
Human Systems Division
IRP Program Office
HSD/YAQ
Brooks AFB, TX 78235-5000
DATE:
14 May 1991
TYPE:
Letter
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.6) #66 001-002
LONG TITLE:
Revised Analytical Methods for Pease AFB
AUTHOR:
Logan VanLeigh, Capt., USAF, BSC
Technical Program Manager
RECIPIENT:
Johanna Hunter, RPM
U.S. EPA, Region 1
DATE:
31 May 1991
TYPE:
Letter
SECOND REFERENCE:
Sampling and Analysis Plan (3.1)
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.6) #67 001-005
LONG TITLE:
Procedure for Establishing Background Metal Concentration
and Soil
AUTHOR:
Edward S. Barnes, Roy F. Weston, Inc.
RECIPIENT:
USAF
DATE:
03 June 1991
TYPE:
Letter
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.6) #68 001-012
LONG TITLE:
Information to Assits Interpretation of Data Submitted by
AUTHOR:
Johanna Hunter, USEPA
RECIPIENT:
Art Ditto, Pease AFB
DATE:
06 June 1991
TYPE:
Letter
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.6) #69 001-004
LONG TITLE:
Resolution Letter for Procedures for 8260 for VOC Analysi
MK01\RPT:00628026.003\site8rod.apd
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
Mark McKenzie, Pease AFB
Richard Pease, NHDES
Carl Gysler, Earth Technology, San Bernardino, CA
Johanna Hunter, USEPA
DATE:
06 June 1991
TYPE:
Fax
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.6) #70 001-001
LONG TITLE:
Background Determination Protocols
AUTHOR:
USAF
RECIPIENT:
Richard Pease, NHDES
DATE:
07 June 1991
TYPE:
Letter
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.6) #71 001-001
LONG TITLE:
Background Determination Protocols
AUTHOR:
USAF
RECIPIENT:
Johanna Hunter, USEPA
DATE:
07 June 1991
TYPE:
Letter
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.6) #72 001-003
LONG TITLE:
Revised Analytical Methods for Pease AFB GC/MS Method 826
AUTHOR:
Edward S. Barnes, Roy F. Weston, Inc.
RECIPIENT:
USAF
DATE:
11 June 1991
TYPE:
Letter
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.6) #73 001-001
LONG TITLE:
Laboratory Services
AUTHOR:
Richard Pease, NHDES
RECIPIENT:
Art Ditto, Pease AFB
DATE:
13 June 1991
TYPE:
Letter
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.6) #74 001-004
LONG TITLE:
Pease AFB Feedback on Site 8 Sampling - June 1991
AUTHOR:
Richard Pease, NHDES
RECIPIENT:
Art Ditto, Pease AFB
DATE:
19 June 1991
TYPE:
Letter
SECOND REFERENCE:
Site 8
LOCATION:
ARF
#
MK01\RPT:00628026.003\site8rod.apd
0
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.6) #75 001-002
LONG TITLE:
EPA Pump Test Information Request to be Provided by Air F
AUTHOR:
Johanna Hunter, RPM
U.S. EPA Region 1
RECIPIENT:
Art Ditto, RPM
USAF
Pease AFB
DATE:
27 June 1991
TYPE:
Letter
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.6) #76 001-002
LONG TITLE:
Roy F. Weston, Inc., Proposed Methods for Determining Bac
Concentrations at Pease Air Force Base, New
Hampshire
AUTHOR:
George Rice, Mitre Corporation
RECIPIENT:
Dennis Lundquist
Human Systems Division IRP Program Office
HSD/YAQ
Brooks AFB, TX 78235-5000
DATE:
02 July 1991
TYPE:
Letter
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.6) #77
LONG TITLE:
Transmittal Letter
AUTHOR:
Arthur Ditto,
USAF/Pease AFB
RECIPIENT:
Richard Pease, RPM
NHDES
DATE:
18 July 1991
TYPE:
Transmittal Letter
SECOND REFERENCE:
Baseline
LOCATION:
ARF
001-001
for Protocols for Baseline Risk Assess
RPM
Risk Assessments
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.6) #78 001-001
LONG TITLE:
Transmittal Letter for Protocols for Baseline Risk Assess
AUTHOR:
Arthur Ditto, RPM
USAF/Pease AFB
RECIPIENT:
Johanna Hunter, RPM
U.S. EPA, Region 1
DATE:
18 July 1991
TYPE:
Transmittal Letter
SECOND REFERENCE:
Baseline Risk Assessments
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.6) #79 001-001
LONG TITLE:
Submittal of Secondary Document
AUTHOR:
USAF
RECIPIENT:
Richard Pease, NHDES
Johanna Hunter, USEPA
DATE:
18 July 1991
TYPE:
Letter
SECOND REFERENCE:
Site 32/36
LOCATION:
ARF
MK01\RPT:00628026.003\site8rod.apd
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.6) #80 001-002
LONG TITLE:
Exploratory Boring Soil Sampling Procedures
AUTHOR:
Edward S. Barnes
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
RECIPIENT:
Capt. Logan Van Leigh
U.S. Air Force
Air Force Center for Environmental Excellence
DATE:
26 July 1991
TYPE:
Letter
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.6) #81 001-001
LONG TITLE:
Vented Monitoring Wells
AUTHOR:
Scott Doane, Hydrogeologist
Groundwater Technology Section
Groundwater Proctection Bureau
NHDES
RECIPIENT:
Mark McKenzie
USAF/Pease AFB
DATE:
31 July 1991
TYPE:
Letter
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.6) #82 001-006
LONG TITLE:
Review of the Proposed Procedure for Background Determina
Pease Air Force Base, Portsmouth, NH
AUTHOR:
Johanna Hunter, USEPA
RECIPIENT:
Art Ditto, Pease AFB
DATE:
02 August 1991
TYPE:
Letter
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.6) #83 001-001
LONG TITLE:
Vented Monitoring Wells - Response to July 31, 1991 Lette
Form NHDES
AUTHOR:
Arthur Ditto, RPM
USAF/Pease AFB
RECIPIENT:
Scott Doane
NHDES
DATE:
26 August 1991
TYPE:
Letter
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
None
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.6) #84 001-001
LONG TITLE:
Split Sampling Results
AUTHOR:
Arthur Ditto, RPM
U.S. Air Force/Pease AFB
RECIPIENT:
Johanna Hunter, RPM
U.S. EPA, Region 1
and
Richard Pease, RPM
NHDES
MK01\RPT:00628026.003\site8rod.apd
DATE:
9 September 1991
TYPE:
Letter
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.6) #85 001-002
LONG TITLE:
Field Oversight - September 1991
AUTHOR:
Richard Pease, NHDES
RECIPIENT:
Arthur Ditto, USAF RPM
DATE:
28 October 1991
TYPE:
Letter
SECOND REFERENCE:
RI Field Work (3.4)
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.6) #86 001-001
LONG TITLE:
Transmittal Letter for Data Collected on Surface Water an
Background Concentration
AUTHOR:
Johanna Hunter, RPM
U.S. EPA, Region 1
RECIPIENT:
Ed Barnes
Project Manager
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
DATE:
2 December 1991
TYPE:
Transmittal Letter
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.6) #87 001-002
LONG TITLE:
Regional Literature Search to Assist Development of the S
Water Background Determination for Pease
AFB, Portsmouth, NH
AUTHOR:
Johanna Hunter, USEPA
RECIPIENT:
Art Ditto, Pease AFB
DATE:
2 December 1991
TYPE:
Letter
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.6) #88 001-001
LONG TITLE:
Fugitive Dust Pathway in the Baseline Risk Assessment
AUTHOR:
Arthur Ditto, RPM, USAF
Pease AFB
RECIPIENT:
Johanna Hunter RPM
U.S. EPA Region 1
DATE:
3 January 1992
TYPE:
Letter
SECOND REFERENCE:
Baseline Risk Assessment (3.5) - RI Reports
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.6) #89 001-001
LONG TITLE:
Evaluation of the Air Pathway in Baseline Risk Assessment
AUTHOR:
USAF
RECIPIENT:
Johanna Hunter, USEPA
DATE:
11 February 1992
TYPE:
Letter
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF
MK01\RPT:00628026.003\site8rod.apd
09/14/94
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.6) #90 001-001
LONG TITLE:
Evaluation of the Air Pathway in Baseline Risk Assessment
AUTHOR:
USAF
RECIPIENT:
Richard Pease, NHDES
DATE:
11 February 1992
TYPE:
Letter
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.6) #95
LONG TITLE:
Transmittal Letter
AUTHOR:
Arthur Ditto,
USAF/Pease AFB
RECIPIENT:
Richard Pease, RPM
NHDES
DATE:
25 February 1992
TYPE:
Transmittal Letter
SECOND REFERENCE:
Baseline
LOCATION:
ARF
001-001
for Submittal of Base Risk Assessment
RPM
Risk Assessment
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.6) #96 001-001
LONG TITLE:
Transmittal Letter for Revised Baseline Risk Assessment P
AUTHOR:
Arthur Ditto, RPM
USAF/Pease AFB
RECIPIENT:
Johanna Hunter, RPM
USEPA, Region 1
DATE:
25 February 1992
TYPE:
Transmittal Letter
SECOND REFERENCE:
Revised Baseline Risk Assessment
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.6) #98 001-003
LONG TITLE:
Request for EPA Split Sampling Results
AUTHOR:
Arthur Ditto, RPM
USAF/Pease AFB
RECIPIENT:
Johanna Hunter, RPM
U.S. EPA, Region 1
DATE:
9 March 1992
TYPE:
Letter
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.6) #99 001-D1
LONG TITLE:
Letter Report of Results of Statistical Comparison of Sta
66 Other Background Samples
AUTHOR:
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
RECIPIENT:
USAF
DATE:
9 March 1992
TYPE:
Letter Report
SECOND REFERENCE:
PEA (3.5)
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.6) #100 001-001
MK01\RPT:00628026.003\site8rod.apd
LONG TITLE:
Transmittal Letter for Submittal of Stage 4 Work Plan Add
the Draft Stage 4 Sampling and Analysis
Plan Addendum Number 2
AUTHOR:
Arthur Ditto, RPM
USAF/Pease AFB
RECIPIENT:
Johanna Hunter
U.S. EPA, Region 1
DATE:
24 March 1992
TYPE:
Transmittal Letter
SECOND REFERENCE:
PEA (3.1), PEA (3.3)
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.6) #101 001-001
LONG TITLE:
Transmittal Letter for Submittal of Stage Addendum Number
Sampling and Analysis Plan
AUTHOR:
Arthur Ditto, RPM
USAF/Pease AFB
RECIPIENT:
Richard Pease, RPM
NHDES
DATE:
24 March 1992
TYPE:
Transmittal Letter
SECOND REFERENCE:
PEA (3.1), PEA (3.3)
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.6) #102 001-001
LONG TITLE:
Data You May Be Able to Provide
AUTHOR:
Thomas R. Marks, Roy F. Weston, Inc.
RECIPIENT:
Mark McKenzie, Pease AFB
DATE:
26 May 1992
TYPE:
Letter
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
ARF
None
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.6) #103 001-022
LONG TITLE:
Evaluation of Air Pathway in Baseline Risk Assessments
AUTHOR:
Richard Pease, NHDES
RECIPIENT:
Art Ditto, Pease AFB
DATE:
13 April 1992
TYPE:
Letter with Attachments
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.6) #106 001-002
LONG TITLE:
Oversight Role of Regulatory Agencies at Pease AFB
AUTHOR:
Michael Daly, USEPA
RECIPIENT:
Mark McKenzie, Pease AFB
DATE:
26 May 1992
TYPE:
Letter
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.6) #111 001-001
LONG TITLE:
Submittal of Draft Secondary Documents, Stage 4 Work Plan
Stage 4 Health and Safety Plan Addendum
AUTHOR:
USAF
RECIPIENT:
Richard Pease, NHDES
DATE:
24 June 1992
TYPE:
Letter
MK01\RPT:00628026.003\site8rod.apd
09/14/94
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
None
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.6) #112 001-001
LONG TITLE:
Submittal of Draft Secondary Documents, Stage 4 Work Plan
Stage 4 Health and Safety Plan Addendum
AUTHOR:
USAF
RECIPIENT:
Johanna Hunter, USEPA
DATE:
24 June 1992
TYPE:
Letter
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.6) #113 001-002
LONG TITLE:
Additional Field Oversight
AUTHOR:
USAF
RECIPIENT:
Michael Daly, USEPA
DATE:
8 July 1992
TYPE:
Letter
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.6) #115 001-003
LONG TITLE:
Pease Air Force FDTA-2 Draft RI Report
AUTHOR:
Lee dePersia, Roy F. Weston, Inc.
RECIPIENT:
USAF
Johanna Hunter, USEPA
Richard Pease, NHDES
DATE:
29 July 1992
TYPE:
Letter
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.6) #116 001-021
LONG TITLE:
Pease Air Force Base Groundwater Modeling Letter Report
AUTHOR:
Lee dePersia, Roy F. Weston, Inc.
RECIPIENT:
USAF
Johanna Hunter, USEPA
Richard Pease, NHDES
DATE:
29 July 1992
TYPE:
Letter with Report
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.6) #117 001-001
LONG TITLE:
Submittal of Draft Primary Document, Site 8 Remedial Inve
AUTHOR:
USAF
RECIPIENT:
Johanna Hunter, USEPA
DATE:
30 July 1992
TYPE:
Letter
SECOND REFERENCE:
Site 8
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.6) #118 001-001
LONG TITLE:
Submittal of Draft Primary Document, Site 8 Remedial Inve
MK01\RPT:00628026.003\site8rod.apd
AUTHOR:
USAF
RECIPIENT:
Richard Pease, NHDES
DATE:
30 July 1992
TYPE:
Letter
SECOND REFERENCE:
Site 8
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.6) #119 001-001
LONG TITLE:
TranSmittal Letter for Summary of Groundwater Treatment P
Influent/Effluent Results
AUTHOR:
Arthur Ditto, RPM
USAF/Pease AFB
RECIPIENT:
Johanna Hunter, RPM
USEPA, Region 1
and
Richard Pease, RPM
NHDES
DATE:
11 August 1992
TYPE:
Letter
SECOND REFERENCE:
PEA (2.7)
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.6) #120 001-001
LONG TITLE:
Monitor Well Inventory and Inspection Report
AUTHOR:
USAF
RECIPIENT:
Johanna Hunter, USEPA
Richard Pease, NHDES
DATE:
18 August 1992
TYPE:
Letter
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.6) #122 001-002
LONG TITLE:
Results of Background Surface Water Sediment Location Wal
AUTHOR:
Richard Pease, RPM, NHDES
RECIPIENT:
Arthur Ditto, RPM, Pease AFB
DATE:
27 August 1992
TYPE:
Letter
SECOND REFERENCE:
PEA (6.4)
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.6) #123 001-005
LONG TITLE:
Risk Assessment Issues for Pease AFB
AUTHOR:
Lee dePersia
Task Manager
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
RECIPIENT:
Arthur Ditto, RPM
USAF/Pease AFB
DATE:
28 August 1992
TYPE:
Letter Report
SECOND REFERENCE:
PEA (3.5)
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.6) #124 001-001
LONG TITLE:
Transmittal Letter for Submittal of Groundwater Backgroun
AUTHOR:
Mark McKenzie for Arthur Ditto
MK01\RPT:00628026.003\site8rod.apd
USAF/Pease AFB
Richard Pease, RPM
NHDES
and
Johanna Hunter
U.S. EPA, Region 1
DATE:
1 September 1992
TYPE:
Letter
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF
RECIPIENT:
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.6) #125 001-002
LONG TITLE:
Policy on Data Transfer During Pumping Tests
AUTHOR:
Arthur Ditto, RPM
USAF/Pease AFB
RECIPIENT:
Richard Pease, RPM
NHDES
and
Johanna Hunter, RPM
U.S. EPA, Region 1
DATE:
9 September 1992
TYPE:
Letter
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.6) #128 001-003
LONG TITLE:
Summary of Risk Issues Meeting of August 19, 1992
AUTHOR:
Johanna Hunter, RPM
U.S. EPA, Region 1
RECIPIENT:
Arthur Ditto, RPM
USAF/Pease AFB
DATE:
16 September 1992
TYPE:
Letter
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.6) #129 001-001
LONG TITLE:
Extension of Draft Final Report Submittal Date, Site 8 Re
Report
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
USAF
Johanna Hunter, USEPA
Richard Pease, NHDES
DATE:
6 October 1992
TYPE:
Letter
SECOND REFERENCE:
Site 8
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.6) #130 001-002
LONG TITLE:
Field Oversight - Mid-August-Mid-September
AUTHOR:
Richard Pease, NHDES
RECIPIENT:
Arthur Ditto, RPM, Pease AFB
DATE:
7 October 1991
TYPE:
Letter
SECOND REFERENCE:
PEA (3.4)
LOCATION:
ARF
#
MK01\RPT:00628026.003\site8rod.apd
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.6) #132 001-001
LONG TITLE:
Pease AFB Zone 5 Site Characterization Summary
AUTHOR:
Lee dePersia, Roy F. Weston, Inc.
RECIPIENT:
USAF
Johanna Hunter, USEPA
Richard Pease, NHDES
DATE:
22 October 1992
TYPE:
Letter
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.6) #137 001-001
LONG TITLE:
Submittal of Draft Secondary Documents, Zones 1, 2, and 5
Characterization Summaries
AUTHOR:
USAF
RECIPIENT:
Richard Pease, NHDES
DATE:
26 October 1992
TYPE:
Letter
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.6) #138 001-001
LONG TITLE:
Submittal of Draft Secondary Documents, Zones 1, 2, and 5
Characterization Summaries
AUTHOR:
USAF
RECIPIENT:
Johanna Hunter, USEPA
DATE:
26 October 1992
TYPE:
Letter
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.6) #139 001-001
LONG TITLE:
Submittal of Stage 4 Sampling and Analysis Plan Addendum
AUTHOR:
USAF
RECIPIENT:
Johanna Hunter, USEPA
DATE:
26 October 1992
TYPE:
Letter
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.6) #140 001-001
LONG TITLE:
Submittal of Stage 4 Sampling and Analysis Plan Addendum
AUTHOR:
USAF
RECIPIENT:
Richard Pease, NHDES
DATE:
26 October 1992
TYPE:
Letter
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.6) #141 001-002
LONG TITLE:
Pease Air Force Base Draft Final IRP Site 8 RI Report
AUTHOR:
Lee dePersia, Roy F. Weston, Inc.
RECIPIENT:
USAF
Johanna Hunter, USEPA
Richard Pease, NHDES
DATE:
13 November 1992
TYPE:
Letter
MK01\RPT:00628026.003\site8rod.apd
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
Site 8
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.6) #143 001-001
LONG TITLE:
Transmittal Letter for Submittal of Draft Final Primary D
Report
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
Arthur Ditto, RPM
USAF, Pease AFB
Richard Pease, RPM
NHDES
DATE:
17 November 1992
TYPE:
Letter
SECOND REFERENCE:
Site 8
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.6) #144 001-001
LONG TITLE:
Transmittal Letter for Submittal of Draft Final Primary D
Report
AUTHOR:
Arthur Ditto, RPM
USAF, Pease AFB
RECIPIENT:
Johanna Hunter, RPM
U.S. EPA, Region 1
DATE:
17 November 1992
TYPE:
Letter
SECOND REFERENCE:
Site 8
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.6) #146 001-001
LONG TITLE:
Application of the Reasonable Maximum Exposure (RME) in R
AUTHOR:
Arthur Ditto, RPM
USAF, Pease AFB
RECIPIENT:
Richard Pease, RPM
NHDES
DATE:
1 December 1992
TYPE:
Letter
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.6) #147 001-001
LONG TITLE:
Explanation of Off-Base Well Inventory Report
AUTHOR:
Arthur Ditto, RPM
USAF, Pease AFB
RECIPIENT:
Richard Pease, RPM
NHDES
DATE:
4 December 1992
TYPE:
Letter
SECOND REFERENCE:
Off-Base Well Inventory Letter Report of 17 Sep
PEA (3.5)
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.6) #148 001-001
LONG TITLE:
Transmittal Letter for Submittal of Quality Assurance Pro
Portion of the Stage 4 Sampling and Analysis
Plan (SAP) Number 3
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
Arthur Ditto, RPM
USAF, Pease AFB
Johanna Hunter, RPM
U.S. EPA, Region 1
MK01\RPT:00628026.003\site8rod.apd
09/14/94
and
Richard Pease, RPM
NHDES
DATE:
11 December 1992
TYPE:
Letter
SECOND REFERENCE:
PEA (3.1)
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.6) #149 001-002
LONG TITLE:
Request for Deadline Extension
AUTHOR:
Arthur Ditto, RPM
USAF, Pease AFB
RECIPIENT:
Johanna Hunter, RPM
U.S. EPA, Region 1
and
Richard Pease, RPM
NHDES
DATE:
23 December 1992
TYPE:
Letter
SECOND REFERENCE:
PEA (6.3)
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.6) #150 001-001
LONG TITLE:
Transmittal of EPA Maximum Risk Calculation Addenda to Si
34 Draft Final RI Reports
AUTHOR:
Arthur Ditto, RPM
USAF, Pease AFB
RECIPIENT:
Johanna Hunter, RPM
U.S. EPA, Region 1
and
Richard Pease, RPM
NHDES
DATE:
29 December 1992
TYPE:
Letter
SECOND REFERENCE:
Sites 5, 8, 32/36 and 34; PEA (3.5)
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.6) #151 001-002
LONG TITLE:
Selection of Remediation Action Alternative for Site 8, F
AUTHOR:
USAF
RECIPIENT:
Johanna Hunter, USEPA
Richard Pease, NHDES
DATE:
08 January 1993
TYPE:
Letter
SECOND REFERENCE:
Site 8; PEA (4.6)
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.6) #156 001-002
LONG TITLE:
Request for Deadline Extension
AUTHOR:
USAF
RECIPIENT:
Johanna Hunter, EPA
Richard Pease, NHDES
DATE:
19 March 1993
TYPE:
Letter
SECOND REFERENCE:
PEA (3.5)
LOCATION:
ARF
#
MK01\RPT:00628026.003\site8rod.apd
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.6) #158 001-001
LONG TITLE:
Submittal of Draft Primary Document, Zone 5 Remedial Inve
AUTHOR:
USAF
RECIPIENT:
Richard Pease, NHDES
DATE:
9 March 1993
TYPE:
Letter
SECOND REFERENCE:
PEA (3.5); Zone 5
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.6) #159 001-001
LONG TITLE:
Submittal of Draft Primary Document, Zone 5 Remedial Inve
AUTHOR:
USAF
RECIPIENT:
Johanna Hunter, EPA
DATE:
Undated
TYPE:
Letter
SECOND REFERENCE:
PEA (3.5); Zone 5
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.6) #161 001-001
LONG TITLE:
Submittal of Draft Document
AUTHOR:
USAF
RECIPIENT:
Richard Pease, NHDES
DATE:
21 April 1993
TYPE:
Letter
SECOND REFERENCE:
Zone 3, Zone 4, LF-5
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.6) #162 001-001
LONG TITLE:
Submittal of Draft Document
AUTHOR:
USAF
RECIPIENT:
Richard Pease, NHDES
DATE:
21 April 1993
TYPE:
Letter
SECOND REFERENCE:
Zone 3, Zone 4, LF-5
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.6) #167 001-001
LONG TITLE:
Submittal of Draft Primary Document, Zone 5 Draft Final R
Investigation Report
AUTHOR:
Arthur Ditto, Pease AFB
RECIPIENT:
Michael Daly, EPA
Richard Pease, NHDES
DATE:
5 August 1993
TYPE:
Letter
SECOND REFERENCE:
Zone 5
LOCATION:
ARF (Section 3.6 Binder)
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.6) #170 001-008
LONG TITLE:
Locations of Surface Waters of the State of New Hampshire
Former Pease AFB
AUTHOR:
Arthur Ditto, Pease AFB
RECIPIENT:
Richard Pease, NHDES
DATE:
16 November 1993
TYPE:
Letter with Attachment
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF (Section 3.6 Binder)
MK01\RPT:00628026.003\site8rod.apd
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (3.6) #172 001-001
LONG TITLE:
Draft Final Zone 3, 4 and 5 Remedial Investigation Report
AUTHOR:
EPA
RECIPIENT:
USAF
DATE:
30 November 1993
TYPE:
Memorandum
SECOND REFERENCE:
Zone 3; Zone 4; Zone 5
LOCATION:
ARF (Section 3.6 Binder
#
MK01\RPT:00628026.003\site8rod.apd
4.1 ARAR Determinations
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (4.1) #1 001-024
LONG TITLE:
New Hampshire ARAR List Update
AUTHOR:
Richard H. Pease, P.E.
NHDES
RECIPIENT:
Arthur Ditto, P.E.
RPM, U.S. Air Force/Pease AFB
DATE:
13 April 1992
TYPE:
Letter and Tables
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (4.1) #2 001-B.3
LONG TITLE:
Installation Restoration Program Stage 4, Basewide ARARs,
Base, NH 03803 - Draft
AUTHOR:
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
RECIPIENT:
USAF
DATE:
January 1993
TYPE:
ARARs
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF, IR
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (4.1) #3 001-002
LONG TITLE:
Waiverability of Env-WS 430, Surface Water Quality Regula
AUTHOR:
Arthur Ditto, Pease AFB
RECIPIENT:
Richard Pease, NHDES
DATE:
21 December 1993
TYPE:
Letter
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF (Section 4.1 Binder)
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (4.1) #4 001-025
LONG TITLE:
New Hampshire ARAR List Update
AUTHOR:
NHDES
RECIPIENT:
USAF
DATE:
23 December 1993
TYPE:
Letter with Attachment
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF (Section 4.1 Binder)
#
MK01\RPT:00628026.003\site8rod.apd
4.2 Feasibility Reports
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (4.2) #4 001-D.45
LONG TITLE:
Installation Restoration Program, Stage 3C, Initial Scree
IRP Site 8, Pease AFB, NH Technical
Report and Appendices - Draft
AUTHOR:
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
RECIPIENT:
USAF
DATE:
June 1992
TYPE:
Report
SECOND REFERENCE:
Site 8
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (4.2) #5 001-C.5
LONG TITLE:
Installation Restoration Program, Stage 3C, Initial Scree
IRP Site 8, Pease AFB, NH Figures Draft
AUTHOR:
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
RECIPIENT:
USAF
DATE:
June 1992
TYPE:
Figures
SECOND REFERENCE:
Site 8
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (4.2) #9 001-B21
LONG TITLE:
Installation Restoration Program, Stage 3C, IRP Site 8, S
Treatability Study Work Plan for Pease
AFB, NH - Draft
AUTHOR:
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
RECIPIENT:
USAF
DATE:
September 1992
TYPE:
Treatability Study Work Plan
SECOND REFERENCE:
Site 8
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (4.2) #10 001-L.4
LONG TITLE:
Installation Restoration Program, Stage 3C, Feasibility S
Pease AFB, NH - Appendices A-L - Draft
AUTHOR:
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
RECIPIENT:
USAF
DATE:
October 1992
TYPE:
Appendices
SECOND REFERENCE:
Site 8
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (4.2) #11 001-5.2.16
LONG TITLE:
Installation Restoration Program, Stage 3C, Feasibility S
Pease AFB, NH, Figures - Draft
AUTHOR:
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
RECIPIENT:
USAF
DATE:
October 1992
TYPE:
Figures
SECOND REFERENCE:
Site 8
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (4.2) #12 001-5.126
LONG TITLE:
Installation Restoration Program, Stage 3C, Feasibility S
Pease AFB, NH, Technical report - Draft
AUTHOR:
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
RECIPIENT:
USAF
MK01\RPT:00628026.003\site8rod.apd
09/14/94
DATE:
October 1992
TYPE:
Report
SECOND REFERENCE:
Site 8
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (4.2) #19 001-Acr.1
LONG TITLE:
United States Air Force Installation Restoration Program,
Initial Screening of Alternatives Report Draft
AUTHOR:
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
RECIPIENT:
USAF
DATE:
March 1993
TYPE:
Report
SECOND REFERENCE:
Zone 5
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (4.2) #20 001-E.4
LONG TITLE:
Installation Restoration Program, Stage 4 No Further Acti
Document for IRP Site 11, Pease AFB, NH 03803
AUTHOR:
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
RECIPIENT:
USAF
DATE:
February 1993
TYPE:
Report
SECOND REFERENCE:
Site 11
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (4.2) #21 001-Acr.3
LONG TITLE:
Installation Restoration Program, Stage 3C Feasibility St
Pease AFB, NH 03803, Technical Report Draft Final
AUTHOR:
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
RECIPIENT:
USAF
DATE:
January 1993
TYPE:
Report
SECOND REFERENCE:
Site 8
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (4.2) #22 001-5.2-16
LONG TITLE:
Installation Restoration Program, Stage 3C Feasibility St
Pease AFB, NH 03803. Figures - Draft Final
AUTHOR:
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
RECIPIENT:
USAF
DATE:
January 1993
TYPE:
Figures
SECOND REFERENCE:
Site 8
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (4.2) #23 001-L.6
LONG TITLE:
Installation Restoration Program, Stage 3C, Feasibility S
Pease AFB, NH 03803. Appendices A
through L - Draft Final
AUTHOR:
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
RECIPIENT:
USAF
DATE:
January 1993
TYPE:
Appendices
SECOND REFERENCE:
Site 8
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (4.2) #29 001-A.8
LONG TITLE:
U.S Air Force Installation Restoration Program Pease AFB
Study Report - Draft Final
AUTHOR:
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
RECIPIENT:
USAF
MK01\RPT:00628026.003\site8rod.apd
09/14/94
DATE:
October 1993
TYPE:
Feasibility Study
SECOND REFERENCE:
Zone 5
LOCATION:
ARF (Zone 5 Shelf)
#
MK01\RPT:00628026.003\site8rod.apd
4.3 Proposed Plan
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (4.3) #1 001-220
LONG TITLE:
"Proposed Plan for Landfill 3, Field Maintenance Squadron
Cleaning Site, Fire Department Training Area 1"
AUTHOR:
Roy F. Weston, Inc., Inc
RECIPIENT:
EPA, NHDES
DATE:
October 1990
TYPE:
Work Plan
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (4.3) #7 001-G.3
LONG TITLE:
Installation Restoration Program, Proposed Plan for Zone
NH-DRAFT
AUTHOR:
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
RECIPIENT:
USAF
DATE:
October 1993
TYPE:
Proposed Plan
SECOND REFERENCE:
Zone 5
LOCATION:
ARF (Zone 5 Shelf)
#
MK01\RPT:00628026.003\site8rod.apd
09/14/94
4.5 Correspondence
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (4.5) #1 001-006
LONG TITLE:
"IRP Proposed Plan for Landfill 3, Field Maintenance Squa
Cleaning Site, Fire Department Training Area
1 (October 1990, draft) Review Comments"
AUTHOR:
State of New Hampshire, Department of Environmental
RECIPIENT:
Air Force
DATE:
27 November
1990
TYPE:
State of New Hampshire Review Comments
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (4.5) #2 001-016
LONG TITLE:
"EPA Region I comments on the IRP Proposed Plan for Landf
Maintenance Squadron Equipment Cleaning Site,
Fire Department Training Area 1 (October 1990, draft)"
AUTHOR:
U.S. EPA
RECIPIENT:
Air Force
DATE:
28 November 1990
TYPE:
EPA Review Comments
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (4.5) #3 001-008
LONG TITLE:
"EPA Region I additional comments on the IRP proposed pla
field maintenance squadron equipment
cleaning site, Fire Department Training Area 1 (Oct
AUTHOR:
U.S. EPA
RECIPIENT:
Air Force
DATE:
3 December 1990
TYPE:
Review Comments
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (4.5) #5 001-002
LONG TITLE:
Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements (ARAR
AUTHOR:
Richard Pease, NHDES
RECIPIENT:
Art Ditto, Pease AFB
DATE:
25 November 1991
TYPE:
Letter
SECOND REFERENCE:
Pea (6.4)
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (4.5) #14 001-001
LONG TITLE:
Document Submittals
AUTHOR:
USAF
RECIPIENT:
Johanna Hunter, USEPA
Richard Pease, NHDES
DATE:
26 May 1992
TYPE:
Letter
SECOND REFERENCE:
Pea (10.1); Site 34
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (4.5) #16 001-001
LONG TITLE:
Submittal of Draft Secondary Document, Site 8 Initial Scr
AUTHOR:
USAF
MK01\RPT:00628026.003\site8rod.apd
09/14/94
RECIPIENT:
Johanna Hunter, USEPA
DATE:
24 June 1992
TYPE:
Letter
SECOND REFERENCE:
Site 8
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (4.5) #17 001-001
LONG TITLE:
Submittal of Draft Secondary Document, Site 8 Initial Scr
AUTHOR:
USAF
RECIPIENT:
Richard Pease, NHDES
DATE:
24 June 1992
TYPE:
Letter
SECOND REFERENCE:
Site 8
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (4.5) #24 001-004
LONG TITLE:
Pease Air Force Base Site 8 Draft Feasibility Study
AUTHOR:
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
RECIPIENT:
USAF
NHDES
USEPA
DATE:
29 October 1992
TYPE:
Letter
SECOND REFERENCE:
Site 8
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (4.5) #25 001-001
LONG TITLE:
Submittal of Draft Primary Document, Site 8 Feasibility S
AUTHOR:
USAF
RECIPIENT:
Johanna Hunter, USEPA
DATE:
3 November 1992
TYPE:
Letter
SECOND REFERENCE:
Site 8
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (4.5) #26 001-001
LONG TITLE:
Submittal of Draft Primary Document, Site 8 Feasibility S
AUTHOR:
USAF
RECIPIENT:
Richard Pease, NHDES
DATE:
3 November 1992
TYPE:
Letter
SECOND REFERENCE:
Site 8
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (4.5) #31 001-001
LONG TITLE:
Determination of Site Boundaries at the Time of Remedial
Implementation (Will Migrate to Proposal)
AUTHOR:
USAF
RECIPIENT:
Johanna Hunter, USEPA
Richard Pease, NHDES
DATE:
2 December 1992
TYPE:
Letter
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF
#
MK01\RPT:00628026.003\site8rod.apd
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (4.5) #32 001-002
LONG TITLE:
Request for Deadline Extension
AUTHOR:
USAF
RECIPIENT:
Johanna Hunter, USEPA
Richard Pease, NHDES
DATE:
4 December 1992
TYPE:
Letter
SECOND REFERENCE:
Site 34
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (4.5) #39 001-001
LONG TITLE:
Submittal of the Draft Site 8 Proposed Plan
AUTHOR:
USAF
RECIPIENT:
Richard Pease, NHDES
Johanna Hunter, USEPA
DATE:
23 March 1993
TYPE:
Letter
SECOND REFERENCE:
Site 8
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (4.5) #40 001-001
LONG TITLE:
Submittal of Draft Secondary Document, Zone 5 Initial Scr
Alternatives
AUTHOR:
USAF
RECIPIENT:
Richard Pease, NHDES
DATE:
12 March 1993
TYPE:
Letter
SECOND REFERENCE:
Zone 5
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (4.5) #41 001-001
LONG TITLE:
Submittal of Draft Secondary Document, Zone 5 Initial Scr
Alternatives
AUTHOR:
USAF
RECIPIENT:
Johanna Hunter, USEPA
DATE:
12 March 1993
TYPE:
Letter
SECOND REFERENCE:
Zone 5
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (4.5) #43 001-004
LONG TITLE:
Selection of Remedial Action Alternatives for Site 8, FDT
AUTHOR:
NHDES
RECIPIENT:
Art Ditto, AFBDA
DATE:
12 February 1993
TYPE:
Letter
SECOND REFERENCE:
PEA (6.3)
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (4.5) #45 001-001
LONG TITLE:
Submittal of Draft Final Primary Document, Site 8 Feasibi
AUTHOR:
USAF
RECIPIENT:
Johanna Hunter, EPA
DATE:
29 February 1993
TYPE:
Letter
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
ARF
Site 8
MK01\RPT:00628026.003\site8rod.apd
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (4.5) #46 001-001
LONG TITLE:
Submittal of Draft Final Primary Document, Site 8 Feasibi
AUTHOR:
USAF
RECIPIENT:
Richard Pease, NHDES
DATE:
29 January 1993
TYPE:
Letter
SECOND REFERENCE:
Site 8
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (4.5) #55 001-001
LONG TITLE:
Submittal of Draft Primary Document, Zone 5 Draft Feasibi
AUTHOR:
Arthur Ditto, Pease AFB
RECIPIENT:
Richard Pease, NHDES
DATE:
14 July 1993
TYPE:
Letter
SECOND REFERENCE:
Zone 5
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (4.5) #56 001-001
LONG TITLE:
Submittal of Draft Primary Document, Zone 5 Draft Feasibi
AUTHOR:
Arthur Ditto, Pease AFB
RECIPIENT:
Mike Daly, EPA Region 1
DATE:
14 July 1993
TYPE:
Letter
SECOND REFERENCE:
Zone 5
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (4.5) #57 001-002
LONG TITLE:
Submittal of the Revised Site 8 Proposed Plan
AUTHOR:
Arthur Ditto, Pease AFB
RECIPIENT:
Mike Daly, EPA Region 1
Richard Pease, NHDES
DATE:
28 July 1993
TYPE:
Letter
SECOND REFERENCE:
Site 8
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (4.5) #58 001-003
LONG TITLE:
Former Pease AFB, Surface Water Issues
AUTHOR:
Richard Pease, NHDES
RECIPIENT:
Arthur Ditto, Pease AFB
DATE:
29 November 1993
TYPE:
Letter
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF (Section 4.5 Binder)
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (4.5) #59 001-001
LONG TITLE:
Site 8, Fire Department Training Area #2, Chemicals of Co
AUTHOR:
Arthur Ditto, Pease AFB
RECIPIENT:
Michael Daly, EPA
DATE:
29 November 1993
TYPE:
Letter
SECOND REFERENCE:
Site 8
MK01\RPT:00628026.003\site8rod.apd
LOCATION:
ARF (Section 4.5 Binder)
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (4.5) #62 001-007
LONG TITLE:
Groundwater Treatment Plant Influent/Effluent Results, Qu
AUTHOR:
Arthur Ditto, Pease AFB
RECIPIENT:
Bill Wandle, EPA Region I
Jeff Andrews, NHDES
DATE:
24 January 1994
TYPE:
Letter Report
SECOND REFERENCE:
Site 32/36; Site 34
LOCATION:
ARF (Section____Binder)
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (4.5) #61 001-001
LONG TITLE:
Groundwater Treatment Plant Influent/Effluent Results, Qu
AUTHOR:
Arthur Ditto, Pease AFB
RECIPIENT:
Bill Wandle, EPA
Jeff Andrews, NHDES
DATE:
9 December 1993
TYPE:
Letter
SECOND REFERENCE:
Site 32/36; Site 34; Site 39
LOCATION:
ARF (Section 4.5 Binder)
#
MK01\RPT:00628026.003\site8rod.apd
5.4 Correspondence
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (5.4) #1 001-001
LONG TITLE:
Region 1 ROD Model Language
AUTHOR:
USAF
RECIPIENT:
Johanna Hunter, USEPA
DATE:
Unknown
TYPE:
Letter
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (5.4) #4 001-002
LONG TITLE:
Pease AFB IRP ROD Review Process
AUTHOR:
Arthur Ditto, Pease AFB
RECIPIENT:
AFBCA/NE
DATE:
15 December 1993
TYPE:
Letter
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF (Section 5.4 Binder)
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (5.4) #5 001-002
LONG TITLE:
Getting to a ROD, Revised Milestones
AUTHOR:
Arthur Ditto, Pease AFB
RECIPIENT:
Michael Daly, EPA Region I
Richard Pease, NHDES
DATE:
4 February 1994
TYPE:
Letter
SECOND REFERENCE:
Zone 1; Zone 2; Zone 3; Zone 4
Site 32/36
LOCATION:
ARF (Section 5.4 Binder)
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (5.4) #10 001-001
LONG TITLE:
Site 8 Record of Decision (ROD)
AUTHOR:
Arthur Ditto, AFBCA/OL-A
RECIPIENT:
Michael Daly, EPA Region I
Richard Pease, NHDES
DATE:
16 September 1994
TYPE:
Memorandum
SECOND REFERENCE:
Site 8
LOCATION:
ARF (Section 5.4 Binder)
#
MK01\RPT:00628026.003\site8rod.apd
6.1 Cooperative Agreements / SMOAs
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (6.1) #1 001-013
LONG TITLE:
"Memorandum of Understanding Executed Between the Town of
NH, and Pease Air Force Base, NH"
AUTHOR:
Town of Newington/Pease Air Force Base
RECIPIENT:
Air Force
DATE:
22 August 1980
TYPE:
Memorandum of Understanding
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (6.1) #2 001-004
LONG TITLE:
"Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) between the U.S. Air F
Occupational and Environmental Health Laboratory
(USAFOEHL) and Pease Air Force Base relating to procedures for
the IRP"
AUTHOR:
U.S. Department of the Air Force
RECIPIENT:
Air Force
DATE:
31 July 1987
TYPE:
Memorandum of Understanding
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF
#
MK01\RPT:00628026.003\site8rod.apd
6.2 Federal Facility Agreement (FFA)
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (6.2) #1 001-097
LONG TITLE:
"Federal Facility Agreement under CERCLA Section 120"
AUTHOR:
U.S. EPA, Region I, State of New Hampshire and the U
Air Force"
RECIPIENT:
EPA, NHDES, Air Force
DATE:
24 April 1991
TYPE:
Federal Facility Agreement
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF,
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (6.2) #2 001-003
LONG TITLE:
"Remedial Project Managers Metting Minutes"
AUTHOR:
Pease Air Force Base
RECIPIENT:
See Distribution List
DATE:
16 January 1991
TYPE:
Meeting Minutes
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF, IR
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (6.2) #3 001-003
LONG TITLE:
"Remedial Project Managers Meeting Minutes"
AUTHOR:
Pease Air Force Base
RECIPIENT:
See Distribution List
DATE:
20 February 1991
TYPE:
Meeting Minutes
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF, IR
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (6.2) #4 001-003
LONG TITLE:
"Remedial Project Managers Meeting Minutes"
AUTHOR:
Pease Air Force Base
RECIPIENT:
See Distribution List
DATE:
20 March 1991
TYPE:
Meeting Minutes
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF, IR
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (6.2) #5 001-002
LONG TITLE:
"Remedial Project Managers Meeting Minutes"
AUTHOR:
Pease Air Force Base
RECIPIENT:
See Distribution List
DATE:
17 April 1991
TYPE:
Meeting Minutes
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF, IR
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (6.2) #6 001-002
LONG TITLE:
"Remedial Project Managers Meeting Minutes"
AUTHOR:
Pease Air Force Base
RECIPIENT:
See Distribution List
DATE:
21 May 1991
TYPE:
Meeting Minutes
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
MK01\RPT:00628026.003\site8rod.apd
LOCATION:
ARF, IR
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (6.2) #7 001-002
LONG TITLE:
"Remedial Project Managers Meeting Minutes"
AUTHOR:
Pease Air Force Base
RECIPIENT:
See Distribution List
DATE:
24 June 1991
TYPE:
Meeting Minutes
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF, IR
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (6.2) #8 001-II.4
LONG TITLE:
Modification 1 to Pease AFB Federal Facilities Agreement
AUTHOR:
USAF
RECIPIENT:
Michael Daly, EPA Region I
Richard Pease, NHDES
DATE:
8 September 1993
TYPE:
FFA Modification
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF, (Section 6.2 Binder)
#
MK01\RPT:00628026.003\site8rod.apd
6.3 Coordination - State / Federal
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (6.3) #1 001-003
LONG TITLE:
"Meeting minutes from Air Force meeting with state offici
Air Force Base IRP"
AUTHOR:
U.S. Air Force
RECIPIENT:
See Distribution List
DATE:
11 March 1987
TYPE:
Meeting Minutes
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (6.3) #2 001-002
LONG TITLE:
"Agenda for Meeting with State DES, Air Force, and EPA Te
AUTHOR:
Pease Air Force Base
RECIPIENT:
See Distribution List
DATE:
26 April 1990
TYPE:
Agenda
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (6.3) #3 001-031
LONG TITLE:
"Completed Applications for Department of the Army Permit
and New Hampshire Wetlands Board
Permit"
AUTHOR:
Department of the Air Force
RECIPIENT:
Army Corps of Engineers, New England Division
DATE:
31 August 1989
TYPE:
Letter and Attachments
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (6.3) #4 001-002
LONG TITLE:
"Letter regarding emergency discharge exclusion from the
permit under the National Pollutant Discharge
Elimination System (NPDES)"
AUTHOR:
US EPA
RECIPIENT:
Air Force
DATE:
29 September 1989
TYPE:
Letter
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (6.3) #6 001-001
LONG TITLE:
"Agenda and Notes for Working Meeting with U.S. EPA and S
Hampshire"
AUTHOR:
US Air Force
RECIPIENT:
See Distribution List
DATE:
21 November 1989
TYPE:
Agenda and Meeting Notes
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (6.3) #7 001-025
LONG TITLE:
"Letter response to Air Force letter of 22 August 1990 re
remedial actions at Pease Air Force Base, 404
permit not required"
AUTHOR:
Department of the Army
RECIPIENT:
Air Force
MK01\RPT:00628026.003\site8rod.apd
09/14/94
DATE:
3 October 1990
TYPE:
Response Letter
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (6.3) #8 001-033
LONG TITLE:
"Point Paper on Installation Restoration Program (Pease A
(Prepared for a meeting of J. Coit and
M. Aldrich, of Senator Humphrey's office, with Pease, NHDES, W
OEHL)"
AUTHOR:
Pease Air Force Base
RECIPIENT:
J. Coit & M. Aldrich of Senator Humphrey's Office
DATE:
31 March 1989
TYPE:
Letter
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (6.3) #9 001-003
LONG TITLE:
"Recommendation to Place Pease AFB on the National Priori
AUTHOR:
Department of Air Force
RECIPIENT:
US EPA
DATE:
27 June 1989
TYPE:
Letter
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (6.3) #10 001-004
LONG TITLE:
Remedial Project Managers' Meeting Minutes of January 16,
AUTHOR:
Arthur Ditto, RPM
USAF/Pease AFB
RECIPIENT:
U.S. EPA/NHDES/USAF Attendees
DATE:
Meeting Date: 16 January 1991
TYPE:
Meeting Minutes
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (6.3) #11 001-004
LONG TITLE:
Remedial Project Managers' Meeting Minutes of February 20
AUTHOR:
Arthur Ditto, RPM
USAF/Pease AFB
RECIPIENT:
U.S. EPA/NHDES/USAF Attendees
DATE:
Meeting Date: 20 February 1991
TYPE:
Meeting Minutes
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (6.3) #12 001-004
LONG TITLE:
Remedial Project Managers' Meeting Minutes
AUTHOR:
USAF
RECIPIENT:
See Distribution
DATE:
20 March 1991
TYPE:
Meeting Minutes
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (6.3) #13 001-004
MK01\RPT:00628026.003\site8rod.apd
09/14/94
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
Remedial Project Managers' Meeting Minutes of April 17, 1
Arthur Ditto, RPM
USAF/Pease AFB
RECIPIENT:
U.S. EPA/NHDES/USAF Attendees
DATE:
17 April 1991
TYPE:
Meeting Minutes
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (6.3) #14 001-003
LONG TITLE:
Remedial Project Managers' Meeting Minutes of May 21, 199
AUTHOR:
Arthur Ditto, RPM
USAF/Pease AFB
RECIPIENT:
U.S. EPA/NHDES/USAF Attendees
DATE:
21 May 1991
TYPE:
Meeting Minutes
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (6.3) #15 001-004
LONG TITLE:
Notification of Additional Investigative Work in a Wetlan
AUTHOR:
USAF
RECIPIENT:
NHDES
Wetlands Board
P.O. Box 2008
Concord, NH 03301-3406
DATE:
14 June 1991
TYPE:
Letter
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (6.3) #16 001-003
LONG TITLE:
Remedial Project Managers' Meeting Minutes of July 24, 19
AUTHOR:
Arthur Ditto, RPM
USAF/Pease AFB
RECIPIENT:
U.S. EPA/NHDES/USAF Attendees
DATE:
24 June 1991
TYPE:
Meeting Minutes
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (6.3) #17 001-003
LONG TITLE:
Remedial Project Managers' Meeting Minutes of August 26,
AUTHOR:
Arthur Ditto, RPM
USAF/Pease AFB
RECIPIENT:
U.S. EPA/NHDES/USAF Attendees
DATE:
24 July 1991
TYPE:
Meeting Minutes
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (6.3) #18 001-004
LONG TITLE:
Remedial Project Managers' Meeting Minutes of September 2
AUTHOR:
Arthur Ditto, RPM
USAF/Pease AFB
MK01\RPT:00628026.003\site8rod.apd
RECIPIENT:
U.S. EPA/NHDES/USAF Attendees
DATE:
21 August 1991
TYPE:
Meeting Minutes
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (6.3) #19 001-004
LONG TITLE:
Remedial Project Managers' Meeting Minutes
AUTHOR:
Arthur Ditto, RPM
USAF/Pease AFB
RECIPIENT:
U.S. EPA/NHDES/USAF Attendees
DATE:
26 September 1991
TYPE:
Meeting Minutes
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (6.3) #20 001-004
LONG TITLE:
Remedial Project Managers' Meeting Minutes
AUTHOR:
Arthur Ditto, RPM
USAF/Pease AFB
RECIPIENT:
U.S. EPA/NHDES/USAF Attendees
DATE:
27 October 1991
TYPE:
Meeting Minutes
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (6.3) #21 001-003
LONG TITLE:
Remedial Project Managers' Meeting Minutes
AUTHOR:
Arthur Ditto, RPM
USAF/Pease AFB
RECIPIENT:
U.S. EPA/NHDES/USAF Attendees
DATE:
20 November 1991
TYPE:
Meeting Minutes
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (6.3) #22 001-003
LONG TITLE:
Remedial Project Managers' Meeting Minutes of January 27,
AUTHOR:
Arthur Ditto, RPM
USAF/Pease AFB
RECIPIENT:
U.S. EPA/NHDES/USAF Attendees
DATE:
19 December 1991
TYPE:
Meeting Minutes
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (6.3) #23 001-003
LONG TITLE:
Remedial Project Managers' Meeting Minutes
AUTHOR:
Arthur Ditto, RPM
USAF/Pease AFB
RECIPIENT:
U.S. EPA/NHDES/USAF Attendees
DATE:
27 January 1992
TYPE:
Meeting Minutes
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF
MK01\RPT:00628026.003\site8rod.apd
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (6.3) #24 001-003
LONG TITLE:
Remedial Project Managers' Meeting Minutes
AUTHOR:
Arthur Ditto, RPM
USAF/Pease AFB
RECIPIENT:
U.S. EPA/NHDES/USAF Attendees
DATE:
25 February 1992
TYPE:
Meeting Minutes
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (6.3) #25 001-002
LONG TITLE:
Remedial Project Managers' Meeting Minutes
AUTHOR:
Arthur Ditto, RPM
USAF/Pease AFB
RECIPIENT:
U.S. EPA/NHDES/USAF Attendees
DATE:
07 April 1992
TYPE:
Meeting Minutes
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (6.3) #26 001-004
LONG TITLE:
NH Wetlands Permit for National Priorities List Related W
AUTHOR:
USAF
RECIPIENT:
NHDES
Wetlands Board
P.O. Box 2008
Concord, NH 03301-2008
DATE:
24 April 1992
TYPE:
Letter
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (6.3) #27 001-002
LONG TITLE:
Remedial Project Managers' Meeting Minutes
AUTHOR:
USAF
RECIPIENT:
See Distribution
DATE:
22 April 1992
TYPE:
Minutes
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (6.3) #28 001-008
LONG TITLE:
Remedial Project Managers' Meeting Minutes, June 3, 1992
AUTHOR:
Arthur Ditto, RPM
USAF/Pease AFB
RECIPIENT:
U.S. EPA/NHDES/USAF Attendees
DATE:
3 June 1992
TYPE:
Meeting Minutes
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (6.3) #29 001-003
LONG TITLE:
Remedial Project Managers' Meeting Minutes of August 21,
MK01\RPT:00628026.003\site8rod.apd
AUTHOR:
Arthur Ditto, RPM
USAF/Pease AFB
RECIPIENT:
U.S. EPA/NHDES/USAF Attendees
DATE:
Meeting Date: 21 August 1992
TYPE:
Meeting Minutes
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (6.3) #30 001-003
LONG TITLE:
Remedial Project Managers' Meeting Minutes - September 10
AUTHOR:
Arthur Ditto, RPM
USAF/Pease AFB
RECIPIENT:
U.S. EPA/NHDES/USAF Attendees
DATE:
10 September 1992
TYPE:
Meeting Minutes
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (6.3) #31 001-002
LONG TITLE:
New Hampshire Sites Where SVE is Used for NAPL Removal
AUTHOR:
John Regan, NHDES
RECIPIENT:
Art Ditto, Pease AFB
Mike Daly, USEPA
Richard Pease, NHDES
Scott Doane, NHDES
DATE:
30 September 1992
TYPE:
Letter
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (6.3) #32 001-002
LONG TITLE:
Remedial Project Managers' Meeting Minutes - October 20,
AUTHOR:
Arthur Ditto, RPM
RECIPIENT:
EPA, NHDES, USAF
Attendees
DATE:
20 October 1992
TYPE:
Minutes
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (6.3) #33 001-003
LONG TITLE:
Application of the Reasonable Maximum Exposure (RME) in R
Assessments; Request for Site Specific Justification for
Using the "Average Maximum"
Richard Pease, NHDES
Art Ditto, Pease AFB
Johanna Hunter, USEPA
Capt. Woerhle, AFCEE
DATE:
22 October 1992
TYPE:
Letter
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (6.3) #34 001-001
LONG TITLE:
Guidebook for Environmental Permits in New Hampshire
AUTHOR:
Richard Pease, NHDES
MK01\RPT:00628026.003\site8rod.apd
09/14/94
RECIPIENT:
Art Ditto, Pease AFB
Johanna Hunter, USEPA
DATE:
4 November 1992
TYPE:
Letter
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (6.3) #35 001-004
LONG TITLE:
Newington Water Quality Sampling on October 14, 1992 and
Performed on October 28, 1992, NHDES Sample
#220009
AUTHOR:
Scott Doane, NHDES
RECIPIENT:
Wayne Wood, Newington, NH
Richard Pease, NHDES
Mark McKenzie, Pease AFB
DATE:
11 December 1992
TYPE:
Letter
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (6.3) #36 001-Attachment 6
LONG TITLE:
Quarterly Report, Second Quarter 1991
AUTHOR:
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
RECIPIENT:
EPA, NHDES, USAF
DATE:
19 July 1991
TYPE:
Quarterly Report
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF, Art Ditto's office files
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (6.3) #37 001-034
LONG TITLE:
Quarterly Report, Third Quarter 1991
AUTHOR:
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
RECIPIENT:
EPA, NHDES, USAF
DATE:
24 October 1991
TYPE:
Quarterly Report, Transmittal Letters
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF, Art Ditto's office files
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (6.3) #38 001-030
LONG TITLE:
Quarterly Report, Fourth Quarter 1991
AUTHOR:
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
RECIPIENT:
EPA, NHDES, USAF
DATE:
14 January 1992
TYPE:
Quarterly Report
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF, Art Ditto's office files
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (6.3) #39 001-020
LONG TITLE:
Quarterly Report, First Quarter 1992
AUTHOR:
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
RECIPIENT:
EPA, NHDES, USAF
DATE:
15 April 1992
TYPE:
Quarterly Report
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF, Art Ditto's office files
#
MK01\RPT:00628026.003\site8rod.apd
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (6.3) #40 001-032
LONG TITLE:
Quarterly Report, Second Quarter 1992
AUTHOR:
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
RECIPIENT:
EPA, NHDES, USAF
DATE:
14 July 1992
TYPE:
Quarterly Report
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF, Art Ditto's office files
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (6.3) #41 001-043
LONG TITLE:
Quarterly Report, Third Quarter 1992
AUTHOR:
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
RECIPIENT:
EPA, NHDES, USAF
DATE:
20 October 1992
TYPE:
Quarterly Report
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF, Art Ditto's office files
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (6.3) #42 001-Q4
LONG TITLE:
Transmittal Letter for Quarterly Progress Report, Fourth
AUTHOR:
Art Ditto, RPM, Pease AFB
RECIPIENT:
Johanna Hunter, RPM, USEPA Region 1
Richard Pease, RPM, NHDES
DATE:
19 January 1993
TYPE:
Transmittal Letter and Quarterly Report
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF, Art Ditto's office files
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (6.3) #43 001-E.1
LONG TITLE:
Quarterly Progress Report for Pease AFB
AUTHOR:
Art Ditto, RPM, Pease AFB
RECIPIENT:
Johanna Hunter, RPM, USEPA Region 1
Richard Pease, RPM, NHDES
DATE:
26 April 1993
TYPE:
Report
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF
#
MK01\RPT:00628026.003\site8rod.apd
6.4 General Correspondence
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (6.4) #1 001-003
LONG TITLE:
"Wetlands Application No. 89-1805"
AUTHOR:
State of New Hampshire, Department of Environmental
and Pollution Control Division
RECIPIENT:
State of New Hampshire
DATE:
14 September 1989
TYPE:
Letter
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (6.4) #2 001-001
LONG TITLE:
"Request for information for wetlands permit"
AUTHOR:
State of New Hampshire, Department of Environmental
RECIPIENT:
Air Force
DATE:
18 September 1989
TYPE:
Letter
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (6.4) #4 001-005
LONG TITLE:
"Air Force Letter to the Wetlands Board regarding a reque
modification to the wetlands permitted
scope of work"
AUTHOR:
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
RECIPIENT:
Delbert Downing, Wetlands Board, Concord, NH
DATE:
21 November 1989
TYPE:
Letter
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (6.4) #5 001-010
LONG TITLE:
"Letter to EPA regarding background information on Pease
AUTHOR:
US Department of Commerce
RECIPIENT:
Air Force via US EPA
DATE:
7 March 1990
TYPE:
Letter
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (6.4) #6 001-001
LONG TITLE:
File # 92-679; CERLA Related Temporary Fill of 2000 Squar
Pease AFB, NH
AUTHOR:
Kenneth N. Kettenring
NHDES
Wetlands Board
P.O. Box 2008
Concord, NH 03302-2008
RECIPIENT:
Art Ditto, Pease AFB
DATE:
26 May 1992
TYPE:
Letter
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (6.4) #7 001-002
LONG TITLE:
State Review Comments to Site 8 Initial Screening of Alte
of TSCA Regulation of PCBs
MK01\RPT:00628026.003\site8rod.apd
09/14/94
AUTHOR:
Richard Pease, NHDES
RECIPIENT:
Art Ditto, Pease AFB
DATE:
11 August 1992
TYPE:
Letter
SECOND REFERENCE:
PEA (10.10); PEA (4.2)
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (6.4) #8 001-019
LONG TITLE:
Lab results of groundwater samples from monitoring wells
and 08-6024.
AUTHOR:
NHDES
RECIPIENT:
Art Ditto, Pease AFB
DATE:
11 February 1993
TYPE:
Letter w/ attachment
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (6.4) #9 001-041
LONG TITLE:
Quarterly Progress Report, Period of Performance July, Au
1993
AUTHOR:
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
RECIPIENT:
USAF
DATE:
October 1993
TYPE:
Report
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF (Section 6.4 Binder)
#
MK01\RPT:00628026.003\site8rod.apd
7.3 Administrative Orders
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (7.3) #1 001-II.3
LONG TITLE:
Pease AFB Federal Facilities Agreement Modification
AUTHOR:
USAF
RECIPIENT:
Pease AFB
EPA Region 1
NHDES
NH Attorney General
DATE:
January 1993
TYPE:
FFA Modification
SECOND REFERENCE:
none
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
RECIPIENT:
DATE:
TYPE:
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
#
MK01\RPT:00628026.003\site8rod.apd
8.2 Toxicological Profiles
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (8.2) #1 001-ZN4
LONG TITLE:
Installation Restoration Program Stage 4 Toxicity Profile
Base, NH 03803
AUTHOR:
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
RECIPIENT:
USAF
DATE:
January 1993
TYPE:
Toxicity Profiles
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF, IR
#
MK01\RPT:00628026.003\site8rod.apd
10.1 Comments and Responses
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (10.1) #1 001-005
LONG TITLE:
"Response to Comments - Draft Final Community Relations P
AUTHOR:
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
RECIPIENT:
Air Force
DATE:
7 February 1991
TYPE:
Letter/Response to Comments
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (10.1) #2 001-003
LONG TITLE:
Draft Community Relations Plan Comments
AUTHOR:
Richard Pease, P.E.
RPM, NHDES
RECIPIENT:
Arthur Ditto, P.E.
RPM, U.S. Air Force
DATE:
30 November 1990
TYPE:
Letter Comment Report
SECOND REFERENCE:
Community Relations
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (10.1) #3 001-010
LONG TITLE:
EPA Region 1 Comments to IRP Draft Community Relations Pl
AUTHOR:
Douglas S. Gutto
U.S. EPA Region 1
Superfund Community Relations
RECIPIENT:
Arthur Ditto, RPM
U.S. Air Force
Pease AFB
DATE:
7 December 1990
TYPE:
Letter Comment Report
SECOND REFERENCE:
Community Relations
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (10.1) #4 001-011
LONG TITLE:
EPA Comments on Pease AFB Community Relations Plan with A
Responses
AUTHOR:
Individual Unknown (From Air Force)
RECIPIENT:
U.S. Air Force
DATE:
January 1991
TYPE:
Comment Report
SECOND REFERENCE:
Community Relations
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (10.1) #5 001-004
LONG TITLE:
NHDES Comments on Pease AFB Community Relations Plan with
Responses
AUTHOR:
Individual Unknown (Through Air Force)
RECIPIENT:
U.S. Air Force
DATE:
January 1991
TYPE:
Comment Report
SECOND REFERENCE:
Community Relations
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (10.1) #6 001-002
MK01\RPT:00628026.003\site8rod.apd
LONG TITLE:
AUTHOR:
Review of Draft (Revised) Final Report IRP Community Rela
Johanna Hunter, RPM
U.S. EPA, Region 1
RECIPIENT:
Arthur Ditto, RPM
U.S. Air Force
Pease AFB
DATE:
25 March 1991
TYPE:
Letter
SECOND REFERENCE:
Community Relations
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (10.1) #7 001-003
LONG TITLE:
Comments Remaining Unresolved for Stage 4 Work Plan Analy
AUTHOR:
Mark McKenzie, Pease AFB
RECIPIENT:
Lee dePersia, Roy F. Weston, Inc.
DATE:
05 May 1991
TYPE:
Comments
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
ARF
PEA (3.1)
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (10.1) #8 001-002
LONG TITLE:
Oversight Comments on the Soil Boring/Piezometer Installa
AUTHOR:
Scott Doane
John Regan
NHDES
RECIPIENT:
Arthur Ditto, P.E.
RPM, U.S. Air Force
Pease AFB
DATE:
13 April 1992
TYPE:
Letter
SECOND REFERENCE:
CRD-1
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (10.1) #12 001-003
LONG TITLE:
Review Comments for Stage 4 Work Plan Addendum Number 2
AUTHOR:
Richard H. Pease, P.E.
RPM, NHDES
RECIPIENT:
Arthur Ditto, P.E.
RPM, USAF
Pease AFB
DATE:
08 May 1992
TYPE:
Letter
SECOND REFERENCE:
PEA (3.3)
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (10.1) #13 001-014
LONG TITLE:
Review Comments for Stage 4 Work Plan and Sampling and An
Addendum Number 2
AUTHOR:
Michael Daly
U.S. EPA Region 1
Federal Facilities Superfund Section
RECIPIENT:
Arthur Ditto, RPM
U.S. Air Force
Pease AFB
DATE:
14 May 1992
TYPE:
Transmittal Sheet, Letter and Comment Report
SECOND REFERENCE:
PEA (3.1); PEA (3.3)
MK01\RPT:00628026.003\site8rod.apd
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (10.1) #14 001-013
LONG TITLE:
Review of Stage 4 Work Plan and Sampling and Analysis Pla
Number 2 for Pease AFB
AUTHOR:
Michael J. Daly
U.S. EPA Region 1
Federal Facilities Superfund Section
RECIPIENT:
Arthur Ditto, RPM
U.S. Air Force/Pease AFB
DATE:
14 May 1992
TYPE:
Letter with Comment Report
SECOND REFERENCE:
PEA (3.1); PEA (3.3)
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (10.1) #25 001-007
LONG TITLE:
Stage 3C Review of Initial Screening of Alternatives for
Training Area, Pease Air Force Pease, NH Draft, June 1992
AUTHOR:
Johanna Hunter, USEPA
RECIPIENT:
Arthur Ditto, Pease AFB
DATE:
10 August 1992
TYPE:
Comments
SECOND REFERENCE:
Site 8
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (10.1) #27 001-002
LONG TITLE:
Stage 4 Work Plan Addendum 3 Review Comments
AUTHOR:
Richard Pease, NHDES
RECIPIENT:
Arthur Ditto, Pease AFB
DATE:
14 August 1992
TYPE:
Comments
SECOND REFERENCE:
PEA (6.3)
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (10.1) #33 001-006
LONG TITLE:
Review of Stage 3C Soil Vapor Extraction Treatability Stu
Site 8 - September 1992
AUTHOR:
Michael J. Daly
U.S. EPA Region 1
Federal Facilities Superfund Section
RECIPIENT:
Arthur Ditto
RPM, USAF
Pease AFB
DATE:
30 September 1992
TYPE:
Letter with 2 Attachments
SECOND REFERENCE:
Site 8; PEA (2.0)
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (10.1) #37 001-002
LONG TITLE:
Proposed Locations for Additional Monitoring Wells at Sit
AUTHOR:
Scott Doane, Hydrogeologist NHDES
and
John Regan, Supervisor NHDES
RECIPIENT:
Arthur Ditto, RPM, USAF
Pease AFB
DATE:
9 October 1992
TYPE:
Letter
MK01\RPT:00628026.003\site8rod.apd
09/14/94
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
Site 8; PEA (3.1)
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (10.1) #38 001-032
LONG TITLE:
Response to Comments; Site 8 Initial Screening of Alterna
AUTHOR:
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
through U.S. Air Force (Arthur Ditto)
RECIPIENT:
Johanna Hunter, RPM
U.S. EPA, Region 1
and
Richard Pease
RPM, NHDES
DATE:
13 October 1992
TYPE:
Transmittal Letters with 2 Attachments
SECOND REFERENCE:
Site 8; PEA (3.5)
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (10.1) #40 001-006
LONG TITLE:
Response to Comments, Stage 4 Work Plan and Sampling and
Addendum 2
AUTHOR:
Arthur Ditto, RPM
U.S. Air Force
Pease AFB
RECIPIENT:
Johanna Hunter, RPM
U.S. EPA, Region 1
and
Richard Pease, RPM
NHDES
DATE:
3 November 1992
TYPE:
Letter
SECOND REFERENCE:
PEA (3.3); PEA (3.1)
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (10.1) #42 001-003
LONG TITLE:
Comments on Pease Off-Base Well Inventory Letter Report
AUTHOR:
Richard H. Pease, P.E.
RPM, NHDES
RECIPIENT:
Arthur Ditto, P.E.
RPM, U.S. Air Force
Pease AFB
DATE:
12 November 1992
TYPE:
Letter
SECOND REFERENCE:
Zone 2; Zone 5; Site 8
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (10.1) #44 001-002
LONG TITLE:
Review of Stage 4 Sampling and Analysis Plan Addendum 3,
AUTHOR:
Michael J. Daly
U.S. EPA, Region 1
Federal Facilities Superfund Section
RECIPIENT:
Arthur Ditto, P.E.
RPM, U.S. Air Force
Pease AFB
DATE:
23 November 1992
TYPE:
Letter
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF
#
MK01\RPT:00628026.003\site8rod.apd
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (10.1) #47 001-002
LONG TITLE:
Review Comments of Stage 4, Site Characterization Summary
AUTHOR:
Richard H. Pease, P.E.
RPM, NHDES
RECIPIENT:
Arthur Ditto, P.E.
RPM, U.S. Air Force
Pease AFB
DATE:
1 December 1992
TYPE:
Letter
SECOND REFERENCE:
Zone
5
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (10.1) #49 001-008
LONG TITLE:
Review of Zone 2 and Zone 5, Site Characterization Summar
AUTHOR:
MIchael J. Daly
U.S. EPA, Region 1
Federal Facilities Superfund Section
RECIPIENT:
Arthur Ditto, P.E.
U.S. Air Force
Pease AFB
DATE:
4 December 1992
TYPE:
Letter with Comment Reports
SECOND REFERENCE:
Zone
2; Zone 5
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (10.1) #61 001-002
LONG TITLE:
Review Comments of Pease AFB Preliminary Findings - Fish
Tissue Analysis
AUTHOR:
Richard Pease, RPM, NHDES
RECIPIENT:
Arthur Ditto, RPM, USAF, Pease AFB
DATE:
21 January 1993
TYPE:
Letter
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (10.1) #62 001-002
LONG TITLE:
Review of the Air Force Selection of Remedial Action Alte
Site 8, FDTA #2, dated January 8, 1993
AUTHOR:
EPA, Region 1
RECIPIENT:
Arthur Ditto, AFBDA
DATE:
26 February 1993
TYPE:
Letter
SECOND REFERENCE:
Site 8
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (10.1) #63 001-004
LONG TITLE:
Review of Site 8 Draft Final Feasibility Study IRP Pease
03801, Draft January 1993
AUTHOR:
EPA, Region 1
RECIPIENT:
Arthur Ditto, AFBDA
DATE:
26 February 1993
TYPE:
Letter and Comments
SECOND REFERENCE:
Site 8
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (10.1) #69 001-018
LONG TITLE:
Response to EPA Comments on Site 8 Draft FS
MK01\RPT:00628026.003\site8rod.apd
09/14/94
AUTHOR:
USAF
RECIPIENT:
EPA
DATE:
27 January 1993
TYPE:
Response to Comments
SECOND REFERENCE:
Site 8
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (10.1) #70 001-021
LONG TITLE:
Response to NHDES Comments on Site 8 Draft FS
AUTHOR:
USAF
RECIPIENT:
NHDES
DATE:
8 January 1993
TYPE:
Response to Comments
SECOND REFERENCE:
Site 8
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (10.1) #71 001-006
LONG TITLE:
Response to NHDES Comments on Zone 5 FS
AUTHOR:
USAF
RECIPIENT:
NHDES
DATE:
07 January 1993
TYPE:
Response to Comments
SECOND REFERENCE:
Zone 5
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (10.1) #72 001-009
LONG TITLE:
Response to EPA Comments on Site 8 Draft FS
AUTHOR:
USAF
RECIPIENT:
EPA
DATE:
11 January 1993
TYPE:
Response to Comments
SECOND REFERENCE:
Site 8
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (10.1) #75 001-002
LONG TITLE:
DES Review of Site 8 Draft Final Feasibility Study, janua
Force's Response to Comments to DES Review
Comments on Site 8 Draft Feasibility Study
AUTHOR:
NHDES
RECIPIENT:
Art Ditto, AFBDA
DATE:
01 March 1993
TYPE:
Comments
SECOND REFERENCE:
Site 8
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (10.1) #76 001-009
LONG TITLE:
EPA Review of Air Force Installation Restoration Program,
Investigation Report, Zone 5, Pease Air Force
Base - February 1993
AUTHOR:
EPA
RECIPIENT:
Art Ditto, AFBDA
DATE:
26 March 1993
TYPE:
Comments
SECOND REFERENCE:
Zone 5
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (10.1) #77 001-011
MK01\RPT:00628026.003\site8rod.apd
09/14/94
LONG TITLE:
IRP Stage 4 Zone 5 Remedial Investigation, February 1993
AUTHOR:
NHDES
RECIPIENT:
Art Ditto, AFBDA
DATE:
26 March 1993
TYPE:
Comments
SECOND REFERENCE:
Zone 5
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (10.1) #81 001-005
LONG TITLE:
Response to EPA Comments on the Draft Zone 5 ISA
AUTHOR:
USAF
RECIPIENT:
EPA Region 1
DATE:
14 June 1993
TYPE:
Response to Comments
SECOND REFERENCE:
Zone 5
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (10.1) #82 001-025
LONG TITLE:
Response to NHDES Comments on the Draft Zone 5 ISA
AUTHOR:
USAF
RECIPIENT:
NHDES
DATE:
14 June 1993
TYPE:
Response to Comments
SECOND REFERENCE:
Zone 5
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (10.1) #99 001-019
LONG TITLE:
Response to EPA Comments on the Draft Zone 5 RI Report
AUTHOR:
USAF
RECIPIENT:
EPA
DATE:
4 August 1993
TYPE:
Response to Comments
SECOND REFERENCE:
Zone 5
LOCATION:
ARF (Section 10.1 Binder)
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (10.1) #100 001-020
LONG TITLE:
Response to NHDES Comments on the Draft Zone 5 RI Report
AUTHOR:
USAF
RECIPIENT:
NHDES
DATE:
5 August 1993
TYPE:
Response to Comments
SECOND REFERENCE:
Zone 5
LOCATION:
ARF (Section 10.1 Binder)
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (10.1) #101 001-006
LONG TITLE:
Response to Comments on the Draft Zone 5 RI Report Addend
AUTHOR:
USAF
RECIPIENT:
EPA
NHDES
DATE:
5 August 1993
TYPE:
Response to Comments
SECOND REFERENCE:
Zone 5
LOCATION:
ARF (Section 10.1 Binder)
#
MK01\RPT:00628026.003\site8rod.apd
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (10.1) #102 001-006
LONG TITLE:
Response to NHDES Comments on the Draft Zone 5 FS
AUTHOR:
USAF
RECIPIENT:
NHDES
DATE:
10 October 1993 (Attached letter is dated August 27, 1993
TYPE:
Response to Comments
SECOND REFERENCE:
Zone 5
LOCATION:
ARF (Section 10.1 Binder)
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (10.1) #103 001-033
LONG TITLE:
Response to EPA Comments on the Draft Zone 5 RI Report
AUTHOR:
USAF
RECIPIENT:
EPA
DATE:
28 September 1993
TYPE:
Response to Comments
SECOND REFERENCE:
Zone 3
LOCATION:
ARF (Section 10.1 Binder)
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (10.1) #110 001-017
LONG TITLE:
Response to NHDES Comments on the Draft Final Site 8 RI R
AUTHOR:
USAF
RECIPIENT:
NHDES
DATE:
13 April 1993
TYPE:
Response to Comments
SECOND REFERENCE:
Site 8
LOCATION:
ARF (Section 10.1 Binder)
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (10.1) #111 001-010
LONG TITLE:
Response to EPA Comments on the Draft Final Site 8 RI Rep
AUTHOR:
USAF
RECIPIENT:
EPA
DATE:
13 April 1993
TYPE:
Response to Comments
SECOND REFERENCE:
Site 8
LOCATION:
ARF (Section 10.1 Binder)
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (10.1) #114 001-003
LONG TITLE:
Remedial Technology Peer Review, Pease International Trad
National Base, New Hampshire, Peer Review
AUTHOR:
Fred Price, Mitre Corporation
RECIPIENT:
Major Charles Howell, AFCEE
DATE:
13 April 1993
TYPE:
Letter
SECOND REFERENCE:
Zone 5
LOCATION:
ARF (Section 10.1 Binder)
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (10.1) #116 001-003
LONG TITLE:
Review of U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Comments o
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)
#
MK01\RPT:00628026.003\site8rod.apd
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (10.1) #130 001-003
LONG TITLE:
Zone 5 Draft Final Feasibility Study and the Zone 5 Draft
Review Comments
AUTHOR:
NHDES
RECIPIENT:
USAF
DATE:
29 November 1993
TYPE:
Comments
SECOND REFERENCE:
Zone 5
LOCATION:
ARF (Section 10.1 Binder)
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (10.1) #133 001-004
LONG TITLE:
Zone 5 and Site 8 Draft Fact Sheets for Proposed Plans Re
AUTHOR:
NHDES
RECIPIENT:
USAF
DATE:
30 December 1993
TYPE:
Comments
SECOND REFERENCE:
Zone 5; Site 8
LOCATION:
ARF (Section 10.1 Binder)
#
MK01\RPT:00628026.003\site8rod.apd
10.2 Community Relations Plan
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (10.2) #1 001-040
LONG TITLE:
"Installation Restoration Program Community Relations Pla
AUTHOR:
Roy F. Weston, INc.
RECIPIENT:
EPA, NHDES, USAF
DATE:
January 1991
TYPE:
Community Relations Plan
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF, IR
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (10.2) #2 001-080
LONG TITLE:
U.S. Air Force Installation Restoration Program Community
Pease AFB, NH Interim Final
AUTHOR:
Dynamac Corporation
230 Peachtree St., N.W., Ste. 500
Atlanta, GA 30303
RECIPIENT:
USAF
DATE:
July
1993
TYPE:
CRP
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF
#
MK01\RPT:00628026.003\site8rod.apd
10.3 Public Notices
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (10.3) #7 001-001
LONG TITLE:
Paid Advertisement in Portsmouth Herald for Zone 5 and Si
Public Comment Period and Public Hearing
AUTHOR:
USAF
RECIPIENT:
Portsmouth Herald, Public
DATE:
6 February 1994
TYPE:
Public Notice
SECOND REFERENCE:
Zone 5; Site 8
LOCATION:
ARF (Section 10.3 Binder)
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (10.3) #8 001-001
LONG TITLE:
Paid Advertisement in Foster's Daily Democrat for Zone 5
Comment Period and Public Hearing
AUTHOR:
USAF
RECIPIENT:
Foster's Daily Democrat; Public
DATE:
5 February 1994
TYPE:
Public Notice
SECOND REFERENCE:
Zone 5; Site 8
LOCATION:
ARF (Section 10.3 Binder)
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (10.3) #9 001-001
LONG TITLE:
Paid Advertisement in Foster's Daily Democrat for Zone 5
Comment Period and Public Hearing
AUTHOR:
USAF
RECIPIENT:
Foster's Daily Democrat; Public
DATE:
26 February 1994
TYPE:
Public Notice
SECOND REFERENCE:
Zone 5; Site 8
LOCATION:
ARF (Section 10.3 Binder)
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (10.3) #10 001-001
LONG TITLE:
Paid Advertisement in the Portsmouth Herald for Zone 5 an
Comment Period and Public Hearing
AUTHOR:
USAF
RECIPIENT:
Portsmouth Herald; Public
DATE:
27 February 1994
TYPE:
Public Notice
SECOND REFERENCE:
Zone 5; Site 8
LOCATION:
ARF (Section 10.3 Binder)
#
MK01\RPT:00628026.003\site8rod.apd
10.4 Public Meeting Transcripts
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (10.4) #3 001-025
LONG TITLE:
Pease Air Force Base Public Workshop and Information Meet
Restoration Program
AUTHOR:
Dynamac Corporation
230 Peachtree St., N.W.
Suite 500
Atlanta, Georgia 30303
RECIPIENT:
USAF
DATE:
12 January 1993
TYPE:
Meeting Summary
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
IR
#
MK01\RPT:00628026.003\site8rod.apd
10.5 Documentation of Other Pub
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (10.5) #1 001-007
LONG TITLE:
Meeting Minutes of Technical Review Committee
AUTHOR:
USAF
RECIPIENT:
See Distribution List
DATE:
30 July 1991
TYPE:
Meeting Minutes
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF (Section 10.5 Binder)
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (10.5) #2 001-007
LONG TITLE:
Meeting Minutes of Technical Review Committee
AUTHOR:
USAF
RECIPIENT:
See Distribution List
DATE:
27 August 1991
TYPE:
Meeting Minutes
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF (Section 10.5 Binder)
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (10.5) #3 001-010
LONG TITLE:
Meeting Minutes of Technical Review Committee
AUTHOR:
USAF
RECIPIENT:
See Distribution List
DATE:
01 October 1991
TYPE:
Meeting Minutes
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF (Section 10.5 Binder)
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (10.5) #4 001-003
LONG TITLE:
Meeting Minutes of Technical Review Committee
AUTHOR:
USAF
RECIPIENT:
See Distribution List
DATE:
29 October 1991
TYPE:
Meeting Minutes
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF (Section 10.5 Binder)
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (10.5) #5 001-013
LONG TITLE:
Meeting Minutes of Technical Review Committee
AUTHOR:
USAF
RECIPIENT:
See Distribution List
DATE:
26 November 1991
TYPE:
Meeting Minutes
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF (Section 10.5 Binder)
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (10.5) #6 001-005
LONG TITLE:
Meeting Minutes of Technical Review Committee
AUTHOR:
USAF
RECIPIENT:
See Distribution List
DATE:
07 January 1992
TYPE:
Meeting Minutes
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
MK01\RPT:00628026.003\site8rod.apd
LOCATION:
ARF (Section 10.5 Binder)
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (10.5) #7 001-003
LONG TITLE:
Meeting Minutes of Technical Review Committee
AUTHOR:
USAF
RECIPIENT:
See Distribution List
DATE:
31 March 1992
TYPE:
Meeting Minutes
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF (Section 10.5 Binder)
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (10.5) #8 001-002
LONG TITLE:
Meeting Minutes of Technical Review Committee
AUTHOR:
USAF
RECIPIENT:
See Distribution List
DATE:
28 April 1992
TYPE:
Meeting Minutes
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF (Section 10.5 Binder)
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (10.5) #9 001-003
LONG TITLE:
Meeting Minutes of Technical Review Committee
AUTHOR:
USAF
RECIPIENT:
See Distribution List
DATE:
20 May 1992
TYPE:
Meeting Minutes
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF (Section 10.5 Binder)
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (10.5) #10 001-005
LONG TITLE:
Meeting Minutes of Technical Review Committee
AUTHOR:
USAF
RECIPIENT:
See Distribution List
DATE:
29 September 1992
TYPE:
Meeting Minutes
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF (Section 10.5 Binder)
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (10.5) #11 001-013
LONG TITLE:
Meeting Minutes of Technical Review Committee
AUTHOR:
USAF
RECIPIENT:
See Distribution List
DATE:
27 October 1992
TYPE:
Meeting Minutes
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF (Section 10.5 Binder)
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (10.5) #12 001-004
LONG TITLE:
Meeting Minutes of Technical Review Committee
AUTHOR:
USAF
RECIPIENT:
See Distribution List
DATE:
16 December 1992
TYPE:
Meeting Minutes
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
MK01\RPT:00628026.003\site8rod.apd
LOCATION:
ARF (Section 10.5 Binder)
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (10.5) #13 001-004
LONG TITLE:
Meeting Minutes of Technical Review Committee
AUTHOR:
USAF
RECIPIENT:
See Distribution List
DATE:
22 February 1990
TYPE:
Meeting Minutes
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF (Section 10.5 Binder)
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (10.5) #14 001-013
LONG TITLE:
Meeting Minutes of Technical Review Committee
AUTHOR:
USAF
RECIPIENT:
See Distribution List
DATE:
30 March 1990
TYPE:
Meeting Minutes
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF (Section 10.5 Binder)
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (10.5) #15 001-004
LONG TITLE:
Meeting Minutes of Technical Review Committee
AUTHOR:
USAF
RECIPIENT:
See Distribution List
DATE:
27 April 1990
TYPE:
Meeting Minutes
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF (Section 10.5 Binder)
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (10.5) #16 001-010
LONG TITLE:
Meeting Minutes of Technical Review Committee
AUTHOR:
Department of the Air Force
RECIPIENT:
See Distribution List
DATE:
30 May 1990
TYPE:
Meeting Minutes
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF (Section 10.5 Binder)
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (10.5) #17 001-008
LONG TITLE:
Meeting Minutes of Technical Review Committee
AUTHOR:
Department of the Air Force
RECIPIENT:
See Distribution List
DATE:
27 June 1990
TYPE:
Meeting Minutes
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF (Section 10.5 Binder)
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (10.5) #18 001-005
LONG TITLE:
Meeting Minutes of Technical Review Committee
AUTHOR:
Department of the Air Force
RECIPIENT:
See Distribution List
DATE:
25 July 1990
TYPE:
Meeting Minutes
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
MK01\RPT:00628026.003\site8rod.apd
LOCATION:
ARF (Section 10.5 Binder)
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (10.5) #19 001-005
LONG TITLE:
Meeting Minutes of Technical Review Committee
AUTHOR:
Department of the Air Force
RECIPIENT:
See Distribution List
DATE:
29 August 1990
TYPE:
Meeting Minutes
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF (Section 10.5 Binder)
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (10.5) #20 001-012
LONG TITLE:
Meeting Minutes of Technical Review Committee
AUTHOR:
Department of the Air Force
RECIPIENT:
See Distribution List
DATE:
26 September 1990
TYPE:
Meeting Minutes
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF (Section 10.5 Binder)
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (10.5) #21 001-008
LONG TITLE:
Meeting Minutes of Technical Review Committee
AUTHOR:
Department of the Air Force
RECIPIENT:
See Distribution List
DATE:
31 October 1990
TYPE:
Meeting Minutes
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF (Section 10.5 Binder)
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (10.5) #22 001-004
LONG TITLE:
Meeting Minutes of Technical Review Committee
AUTHOR:
Department of the Air Force
RECIPIENT:
See Distribution List
DATE:
29 November 1990
TYPE:
Meeting Minutes
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF (Section 10.5 Binder)
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (10.5) #23 001-003
LONG TITLE:
Meeting Minutes of Technical Review Committee
AUTHOR:
Department of the Air Force
RECIPIENT:
See Distribution List
DATE:
31 January 1991
TYPE:
Meeting Minutes
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF (Section 10.5 Binder)
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (10.5) #24 001-003
LONG TITLE:
Meeting Minutes of Technical Review Committee
AUTHOR:
Department of the Air Force
RECIPIENT:
See Distribution List
DATE:
27 March 1991
TYPE:
Meeting Minutes
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
MK01\RPT:00628026.003\site8rod.apd
LOCATION:
ARF (Section 10.5 Binder)
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (10.5) #25 001-006
LONG TITLE:
Meeting Minutes of Technical Review Committee
AUTHOR:
Department of the Air Force
RECIPIENT:
See Distribution List
DATE:
24 April 1991
TYPE:
Meeting Minutes
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF (Section 10.5 Binder)
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (10.5) #26 001-003
LONG TITLE:
Meeting Minutes of Technical Review Committee
AUTHOR:
Department of the Air Force
RECIPIENT:
See Distribution List
DATE:
28 May 1991
TYPE:
Meeting Minutes
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF (Section 10.5 Binder)
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (10.5) #27 001-006
LONG TITLE:
Meeting Minutes of Technical Review Committee
AUTHOR:
Department of the Air Force
RECIPIENT:
See Distribution List
DATE:
25 June 1991
TYPE:
Meeting Minutes
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF (Section 10.5 Binder)
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (10.5) #28 001-008
LONG TITLE:
Meeting Minutes of Technical Review Committee
AUTHOR:
USAF
RECIPIENT:
See Distribution List
DATE:
31 August 1993
TYPE:
Meeting Minutes
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF (Section 10.5 Binder)
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (10.5) #29 001-011
LONG TITLE:
Meeting Minutes of Technical Review Committee
AUTHOR:
USAF
RECIPIENT:
See Distribution List
DATE:
30 November 1993
TYPE:
Meeting Minutes
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF (Section 10.5 Binder)
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (10.5) #30 001-009
LONG TITLE:
Meeting Minutes of Technical Review Committee
AUTHOR:
USAF
RECIPIENT:
See Distribution List
DATE:
28 September 1993
TYPE:
Meeting Minutes
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
MK01\RPT:00628026.003\site8rod.apd
LOCATION:
ARF (Section 10.5 Binder)
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (10.5) #31 001-010
LONG TITLE:
Meeting Minutes of Technical Review Committee
AUTHOR:
USAF
RECIPIENT:
See Distribution List
DATE:
26 October 1993
TYPE:
Meeting Minutes
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF (Section 10.5 Binder)
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (10.5) #32 001-002
LONG TITLE:
Meeting Minutes of Technical Review Committee
AUTHOR:
USAF
RECIPIENT:
See Distribution List
DATE:
18 January 1994
TYPE:
Meeting Minutes
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF (Section 10.5 Binder)
#
MK01\RPT:00628026.003\site8rod.apd
10.6 Fact Sheets, Press Advisories, and New Rele
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (10.6) #1 001-003
LONG TITLE:
"News release regarding the investigation of 22 sites on
AUTHOR:
U.S. Air Force
RECIPIENT:
Media
DATE:
30 September 1987
TYPE:
News Release
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (10.6) #2 001-002
LONG TITLE:
"News release regarding presentation of the second interi
AUTHOR:
U.S. Air Force
RECIPIENT:
Media
DATE:
21 September 1988
TYPE:
News Release
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (10.6) #3 001-003
LONG TITLE:
"News release regarding the underground water sampling pr
AUTHOR:
U.S. Air Force
RECIPIENT:
Media
DATE:
29 November 1988
TYPE:
News Release
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (10.6) #4 001-002
LONG TITLE:
"News release regarding the release of the third interim
AUTHOR:
U.S. Air Force
RECIPIENT:
Media
DATE:
22 March 1989
TYPE:
News Release
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (10.6) #5 001-004
LONG TITLE:
"News release regarding off-base well water sampling resu
AUTHOR:
U.S. Air Force
RECIPIENT:
Media
DATE:
7 June 1989
TYPE:
News Release
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (10.6) #7 001-003
LONG TITLE:
"Superfund Program Draft Interagency Agreement Fact Sheet
AUTHOR:
U.S. EPA, Region I
RECIPIENT:
See Mailing List
DATE:
December 1990
TYPE:
Fact Sheet
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
MK01\RPT:00628026.003\site8rod.apd
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (10.6) #8 001-008
LONG TITLE:
Pease Air Force Base Installation Restoration Program Upd
Investigation/Feasibility Study
AUTHOR:
USAF
RECIPIENT:
See Distribution List
DATE:
October 1991
TYPE:
Fact Sheet
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (10.6) #9 011-011
LONG TITLE:
Pease Air Force Base Installation Restoration Program Upd
Update
AUTHOR:
USAF
RECIPIENT:
See Distribution List
DATE:
December 1992
TYPE:
Fact Sheet
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (10.6) #10 001-004
LONG TITLE:
Pease Air Force Base Installation Restoration Program Upd
Groundwater Treatment - Sites 8, 32/36 and 34
AUTHOR:
USAF
RECIPIENT:
See Distribution List
DATE:
January 1993
TYPE:
Fact Sheet
SECOND REFERENCE:
Site 8, 34, 32/36
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (10.6) #20 001-004
LONG TITLE:
Pease AFB Environmental Reporter Volume I, Number 1
AUTHOR:
USAF
RECIPIENT:
See Mailing List
DATE:
January 1994
TYPE:
Newsletter
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF (Section 10.6 Binder)
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (10.6) #21 001-004
LONG TITLE:
Pease AFB Installation Restoration Program Update, Propos
Site 8
AUTHOR:
USAF
RECIPIENT:
See Mailing List
DATE:
January 1994
TYPE:
Fact Sheet
SECOND REFERENCE:
Site 8
LOCATION:
ARF (Section 10.6 Binder)
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (10.6) #22 001-004
LONG TITLE:
Pease AFB Installation Restoration Program Update, Propos
Zone 5 (Site 9 and 11)
AUTHOR:
USAF
RECIPIENT:
See Mailing List
DATE:
January 1994
TYPE:
Fact Sheet
SECOND REFERENCE:
Zone
5
LOCATION:
ARF (Section 10.6 Binder)
MK01\RPT:00628026.003\site8rod.apd
09/14/94
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (10.6) #23 001-001
LONG TITLE:
News Release Regarding Postponement of Site8/Zone 5 Publi
AUTHOR:
USAF
RECIPIENT:
Media
DATE:
9 February 1994
TYPE:
News Release
SECOND REFERENCE:
Site 8; Zone
5
LOCATION:
ARF (Section 10.6 Binder)
#
MK01\RPT:00628026.003\site8rod.apd
10.10 Correspondence
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (10.10) #1 001-001
LONG TITLE:
"Letter regarding concern about the hazardous waste sites
AUTHOR:
Gordon J. Humphrey, U.S. Senate
RECIPIENT:
James F. McGovern, Acting Secretary of the Air Force
DATE:
24 March 1989
TYPE:
Letter
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (10.10) #2 001-002
LONG TITLE:
"Letter regarding the migration of Air Force hazardous wa
AFB perimeter"
AUTHOR:
Town of Newington
RECIPIENT:
Robert Field, Environmental Cleanup Advisory Committee, P
DATE:
11 May 1990
TYPE:
Letter
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (10.10) #3 001-008
LONG TITLE:
"Letter regarding groundwater sampling conducted on priva
AUTHOR:
Department of the Air Force
RECIPIENT:
Will Gilbert, Newington, NH
DATE:
6 June 1989
TYPE:
Letter
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (10.10) #4 001-001
LONG TITLE:
Submittal Letter for Draft Community Relations Plan for t
Military Reservation(MMR) on Cape Code,
Massachusetts
AUTHOR:
Douglas S. Gutro, USEPA
RECIPIENT:
Karen Cowden,
Roy F. Weston, Inc.
DATE:
19 June 1990
TYPE:
Letter
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (10.10) #5 001-002
LONG TITLE:
Impact of Base Closure on Personnel Responsible for the I
Restoration Program and Public Affairs
AUTHOR:
Merrill S. Hohman, USEPA
RECIPIENT:
Col. James R. Wilson
Pease AFB, NH
DATE:
27 August 1990
TYPE:
Letter
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (10.10) #6 001-001
LONG TITLE:
Impact of Base Closure on Personnel Responsible for the I
Restoration Program and Public Affairs (Your Letter,
August 27, 1990)
AUTHOR:
USAF
RECIPIENT:
Merrill S. Hohman, USEPA
MK01\RPT:00628026.003\site8rod.apd
09/14/94
DATE:
11 October 1990
TYPE:
Letter
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (10.10) #
LONG TITLE:
Submittal of Primary Documents (Community Relations Plan)
AUTHOR:
USAF
RECIPIENT:
Jim Brown, USEPA
DATE:
24 October 1990
TYPE:
Letter
SECOND REFERENCE:
PEA (10.2)
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (10.10) #8 001-001
LONG TITLE:
Submittal of Primary Documents (Community Relations Plan)
AUTHOR:
USAF
RECIPIENT:
Richard Pease, NHDES
DATE:
24 October 1990
TYPE:
Letter
SECOND REFERENCE:
PEA (10.2)
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (10.10) #9 001-001
LONG TITLE:
Community Relations Plan Development Extension
AUTHOR:
USAF
RECIPIENT:
Johanna Hunter, USEPA
DATE:
17 January 1991
TYPE:
Letter
SECOND REFERENCE:
PEA (10.2)
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (10.10) #10 001-001
LONG TITLE:
Community Relations Plan Development Extension
AUTHOR:
USAF
RECIPIENT:
Richard Pease, NHDES
DATE:
17 January 1991
TYPE:
Letter
SECOND REFERENCE:
PEA (10.2)
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (10.10) #11 001-001
LONG TITLE:
Submittal of Draft Final Primary Documents
AUTHOR:
USAF
RECIPIENT:
Richard Pease, NHDES
DATE:
5 February 1991
TYPE:
Letter
SECOND REFERENCE:
PEA (3.1); PEA (3.3)
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (10.10) #12 001-001
LONG TITLE:
Submittal of Draft Final Primary Documents
AUTHOR:
USAF
RECIPIENT:
Johanna Hunter, USEPA
MK01\RPT:00628026.003\site8rod.apd
DATE:
5 February 1991
TYPE:
Letter
SECOND REFERENCE:
PEA (3.1); PEA (3.3)
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (10.10) #13 001-001
LONG TITLE:
Community Relations Plan
AUTHOR:
USAF
RECIPIENT:
Johanna Hunter, USEPA
DATE:
12 April 1991
TYPE:
Letter
SECOND REFERENCE:
PEA (10.2)
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (10.10) #14 001-004
LONG TITLE:
Basewide ARARs Pease AFB, NH 03803, January 1993, DRAFT Comments
AUTHOR:
Richard Pease, NHDES
RECIPIENT:
Arthur Ditto, Pease AFB
DATE:
1 April 1993
TYPE:
Letter
SECOND REFERENCE:
PEA (4.1)
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (10.10) #15 001-002
LONG TITLE:
Installation Restoration Program, Stage 4, No Further Act
Document for IRP Site 11, February 1993 Review Comments
AUTHOR:
Richard Pease, NHDES
RECIPIENT:
Arthur Ditto, Pease AFB
DATE:
2 April 1993
TYPE:
Letter
SECOND REFERENCE:
Site 11
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (10.10) #17 001-010
LONG TITLE:
Zone 5 Initial Screening of Alternatives Report DRAFT Mar
Comments
AUTHOR:
Richard Pease, NHDES
RECIPIENT:
Arthur Ditto, Pease AFB
DATE:
23 April 1993
TYPE:
Letter
SECOND REFERENCE:
Zone 5
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (10.10) #21 001-012
LONG TITLE:
Proposed Plan for IRP Site 8, Fire Department Training Ar
DRAFT - Review Comments
AUTHOR:
Richard Pease, NHDES
RECIPIENT:
Arthur Ditto, Pease AFB
DATE:
14 May 1993
TYPE:
Letter
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
ARF
Site 8
#
MK01\RPT:00628026.003\site8rod.apd
11.1 EPA Headquarters Guidance
*NOTE:
Guidance documents listed as bibliographic sources for a docum
Administrative Record are not listed
separately in this index.
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (11.1) #01 001-003
LONG TITLE:
Risk Assessment Issue Paper for Carcinogenicity Character
Trichloroethylene (CASRN 79-01-6),
Tetrachloroethylene (CASRN 127-18-4), and Styrene (CASRN 100
AUTHOR:
USEPA
RECIPIENT:
USAF
DATE:
14 July 1992
TYPE:
Guidance
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (11.1) #2 001-G.2
LONG TITLE:
Draft Guidance on Preparing Superfund Decision Documents:
Plan and Record of Decision
AUTHOR:
Office of Emergency & Remedial Response, EPA, Washin
RECIPIENT:
USAF
DATE:
March 1988
TYPE:
Guidance
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
Art's Office
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (11.1) #3 001-B.9
LONG TITLE:
The RPM Primer: An Introductory Guide to the Role and Re
the Superfund Remedial Project Manager
AUTHOR:
Office of Emergency and Remedial Response, EPA, Wash
RECIPIENT:
USAF
DATE:
September 1987
TYPE:
Guidance
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
Art's Office
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (11.1) #4 001-11.1
LONG TITLE:
CERCLA Site Discrepancies to POTWs Guidance Manual
AUTHOR:
Office of Emergency and Remedial Response, EPA, Wash
RECIPIENT:
USAF
DATE:
August 1990
TYPE:
Guidance
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
Art's Office
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (11.1) #5 001-041
LONG TITLE:
Framework for Ecological Risk Assessment
AUTHOR:
EPA
RECIPIENT:
USAF
DATE:
February 1992
TYPE:
Guidance
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
Art's Office
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (11.1) #6 001-E.1
LONG TITLE:
Preliminary Assessment Guidance Fiscal Year 1988
MK01\RPT:00628026.003\site8rod.apd
09/14/94
AUTHOR:
Office of Emergency and Remedial Response, EPA, Wash
RECIPIENT:
USAF
DATE:
January 1988
TYPE:
Guidance
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
Art's Office
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (11.1) #7 001-G.1
LONG TITLE:
Community Relations in Superfund: A Handbook (Interim Ve
AUTHOR:
Office of Emergency and Remedial Response, EPA, Wash
RECIPIENT:
USAF
DATE:
1988
TYPE:
Guidance
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
Art's Office
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (11.1) #8 001-H.6
LONG TITLE:
Summary Report on Issues in Ecological Risk Assessment
AUTHOR:
EPA
RECIPIENT:
USAF
DATE:
February 1991
TYPE:
Guidance
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
Art's Office
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (11.1) #9 001-127
LONG TITLE:
Technology Screening Guide for Treatment of CERCLA Soils
AUTHOR:
EPA
RECIPIENT:
USAF
DATE:
September 1988
TYPE:
Guidance
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
Art's Office
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (11.1) #10 001-F.19
LONG TITLE:
Guidance for Conducting Remedial Investigations and Feasi
Under CERCLA - Interim Final
AUTHOR:
Office of Emergency and Remedial Response, EPA, Wash
RECIPIENT:
USAF
DATE:
October 1988
TYPE:
Guidance
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
None
Art's Office
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (11.1) #11 001-103
LONG TITLE:
Final Guidance on Administrative Records for Selecting CE
Actions
AUTHOR:
Office of Solid Waste and Emergency Response, EPA, W
RECIPIENT:
USAF
DATE:
1190/91
TYPE:
Guidance
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
Art's Office
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (11.1) #12 001-B.2
MK01\RPT:00628026.003\site8rod.apd
LONG TITLE:
Implementing EPA's Groundwater Protection Strategy for th
Comprehensive State Groundwater Protection
Program Guidance
AUTHOR:
EPA
RECIPIENT:
USAF
DATE:
1992
TYPE:
Guidance
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
Art's Office
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (11.1) #13 001-021
LONG TITLE:
A Handbook for State Groundwater Managers
AUTHOR:
Office of Water, EPA, Washington, DC
RECIPIENT:
USAF
DATE:
May 1992
TYPE:
Guidance
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
Art's Office
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (11.1) #14 001-3.40
LONG TITLE:
Conducting Remedial Investigations/Feasibility Studies fo
Municipal Landfill Sites
AUTHOR:
Office of Emergency and Remedial Response, EPA, Wash
RECIPIENT:
USAF
DATE:
February 1991
TYPE:
Guidance
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
Art's Office
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (11.1) #15 001-F.2
LONG TITLE:
Guidance on Preparing Superfund Decision Documents: The
The Record of Decision, and Explanation
of Significant Differences, The Record of Decision Amendment
AUTHOR:
Office of Emergency and Remedial Response, EPA, Wash
RECIPIENT:
USAF
DATE:
July 1989
TYPE:
Guidance
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
Art's Office
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (11.1) #16 001-B.12
LONG TITLE:
Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund Volume I: Human H
Manual (Part A) Interim Final
AUTHOR:
Office of Emergency and Remedial Response, EPA, Wash
RECIPIENT:
USAF
DATE:
December 1989
TYPE:
Guidance
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
Art's Office
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (11.1) #17 001-057
LONG TITLE:
Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund Volume II: Enviro
Evaluation Manual Interim Final
AUTHOR:
Office of Emergency and Remedial Response, EPA, Wash
RECIPIENT:
USAF
DATE:
March 1989
TYPE:
Guidance
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
Art's Office
#
MK01\RPT:00628026.003\site8rod.apd
09/14/94
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (11.1) #18 Deleted
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (11.1) #19 001-B.2
LONG TITLE:
Superfund Removal Procedures Action Memorandum Guidance
AUTHOR:
EPA
RECIPIENT:
USAF
DATE:
December 1990
TYPE:
Guidance
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
Art's Office
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (11.1) #20 001-G
LONG TITLE:
RCRA Orientation Manual
AUTHOR:
EPA
RECIPIENT:
USAF
DATE:
1990
TYPE:
Guidance
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
Art's Office
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (11.1) #21 001-295
LONG TITLE:
The Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation Program:
Profiles
AUTHOR:
EPA
RECIPIENT:
USAF
DATE:
November 1991
TYPE:
Guidance
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
Art's Office
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (11.1) #22 001-017
LONG TITLE:
Accessing Federal Data Bases for Contaminated Site CleanAUTHOR:
EPA
RECIPIENT:
USAF
DATE:
May 1991
TYPE:
Guidance
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
Art's Office
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (11.1) #23 001-023
LONG TITLE:
Bibliography of Federal Reports and Publications Describi
Innovative Treatment Technologies for
AUTHOR:
EPA
RECIPIENT:
USAF
DATE:
May 1991
TYPE:
Guidance
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
Art's Office
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (11.1) #24 001-111
LONG TITLE:
Synopses of Federal Demonstrations of Innovative Site Rem
Technologies
AUTHOR:
EPA
RECIPIENT:
USAF
DATE:
May 1991
MK01\RPT:00628026.003\site8rod.apd
09/14/94
TYPE:
Guidance
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
Art's Office
#
MK01\RPT:00628026.003\site8rod.apd
11.2 EPA Regional Guidance
*NOTE:
Guidance documents listed as bibliographic sources for a docum
Administrative Record are not listed
separately in this index.
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (11.2) #1 001-C.1
LONG TITLE:
Land Disposal Restrictions Summary of Requirements
AUTHOR:
EPA, Region 1
RECIPIENT:
USAF
DATE:
August 1990
TYPE:
Guidance
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
Art's Office
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (11.2) #2 001-107
LONG TITLE:
Supplemental Risk Assessment Guidance for the Superfund P
AUTHOR:
EPA, Region 1
RECIPIENT:
USAF
DATE:
June 1989
TYPE:
Guidance
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
Art's Office
#
MK01\RPT:00628026.003\site8rod.apd
09/14/94
11.3 State Guidance
*NOTE
Guidance documents listed as bibliographic sources for a docum
Administrative Record are not listed
separately in this index.
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (11.3) #1 001-001
LONG TITLE:
ENC-WS 410 Groundwater Protection Rules
AUTHOR:
NHDES
RECIPIENT:
Art Ditto, AFBDA
DATE:
February 18, 1993
TYPE:
Letter
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (11.3) #2 001-B.8
LONG TITLE:
Interim Policy for the Management of Soils Contaminated f
of Virgin Petroleum Products
AUTHOR:
NHDES
RECIPIENT:
USAF
DATE:
September 1991
TYPE:
Guidance
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
Art's Office
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (11.3) #3 001-048
LONG TITLE:
Groundwater Protection Rules
AUTHOR:
NHDES
RECIPIENT:
USAF
DATE:
February 1993
TYPE:
Guidance
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
Art's Office
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (11.3) #4 001-37.3
LONG TITLE:
New Hampshire Rules for the Control of Radiation
AUTHOR:
NHDES
RECIPIENT:
USAF
DATE:
April 1983
TYPE:
Guidance
SECOND REFERENCE:
LOCATION:
None
Art's Office
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (11.3) #5 001-C.15
LONG TITLE:
Guidance Document for the Closure of Solid Waste Landfill
AUTHOR:
NHDES
RECIPIENT:
USAF
DATE:
May 1990
TYPE:
Guidance
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
Art's Office
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (11.3) #6 001-D.7
LONG TITLE:
Guidebook for Environmental Permits in New Hampshire
AUTHOR:
NHDES
RECIPIENT:
USAF
DATE:
1992
MK01\RPT:00628026.003\site8rod.apd
09/14/94
TYPE:
Guidance
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
Art's Office
#
MK01\RPT:00628026.003\site8rod.apd
11.4 Air Force Guidance
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (11.4) #1 001-024
LONG TITLE:
"Ecological Risk Assessment Guidance for Pease AFB, New H
AUTHOR:
Mitre Corporation, Civil Systems Division
RECIPIENT:
Air Force
DATE:
20 June 1990
TYPE:
Letter Report
SECOND REFERENCE:
None
LOCATION:
ARF
#
DOCUMENT NUMBER:
PEA (11.4) #2 001-016
LONG TITLE:
"Implementation of Department of Defense (DOD) policy gui
Policy No. 1"
AUTHOR:
Department of the Air Force
RECIPIENT:
See Distribution List
DATE:
11 December