NM-AZ_PBR_Draft_RFP_Questions_Responses_cont_Q269-285_6_Mar_2013.doc

NM-AZ PBR Draft RFP Questions continued – 6 Mar 2013

Question 269. The QAs indicated that Holloman has their Administrative Record (AR) on a website that is maintained by an individual (Ms. Ellen Tait) who will grant access to the requesting contractor through Base approval. AFCEC was going to put together a cumulative list of all the contractors requesting access so that Ms. Tait could take care of the grants all at once.

Government Response: This is no longer the process to gain access to the Holloman AFB AR files. The Holloman AFB AR files have been uploaded to the Google site as with all of the other pertinent and historical information pertaining to the sites covered in this PBR.

Question 270. SWMU 31 – A Remedy Completion Report for SWMU 31 (AGE Maintenance Shop Pad) was completed by Tetra Tech in February 2010. Please provide NMED letters regarding this Remedy Completion Report (e.g., AR-1477 – NMED Letter from James Bearzi to Col Stephen Clark – NOD Remedy Completion Report for SWMU 31 [March 29, 2010] and AR-1666 – NMED NOA Remedy Completion Report for SWMU 31 – [June 4, 2010]) on the AFCEC website.

Government Response: Refer to Question #8 of the Draft RFP questions Question 271. SWMU 70 – The Site Visit Power Point Presentation indicates bioventing soil remediation was completed from 1994 to 2004, but SWMU 70 was identified on Cannon’s RCRA Permit decision letter dated February 27, 2006 as "requiring additional corrective action" before site can be petitioned for CAC (AR-1667). Has the accelerated corrective measure been completed? If yes, please provide the accelerated corrective measures report (including AR-1667) on the AFCEC website.

Government Response: No, the corrective measures have NOT been completed as NMED is requesting further sampling at this site.

Question 272. SWMU 71 – We understand SWMU 71 was identified on Cannon’s RCRA Permit decision letter dated February 27, 2006 as "requiring additional corrective action" before site can be petitioned for CAC (AR-1667). Has the corrective action been completed? If yes, please provide the corrective action report on the AFCEC website. Additionally, the Site Visit Power Point Presentation indicates data supporting a CAC Proposal was identified and the site is currently under contract for CACP. Please provide this supporting data on the AFCEC website.

Government Response: No, the corrective measures have NOT been completed as NMED is requesting further sampling at this site.

Question 273. SWMUs 109, 110, 111, and 112 – We understand a RFI Report and Work Plan for Remedial Action Construction at FT-4 (SWMU 109, 110, 111, and 112) was prepared, but the documents have not been provided on the AFCFC website. Please provide these documents on the AFCEC website.

Government Response: Refer to Question #8 of the Draft RFP Questions.

Question 274. SWMU 126 – The Site Visit Power Point Presentation indicates data supporting a CAC Proposal was identified and the site is currently under contract for CACP. Please provide this supporting data on the AFCEC website.

Government Response: Refer to Question #8 of the Draft RFP Questions.

Question 275. SWMU 127/128 – A 2001 Statement of Basis (SOB) prepared by NMED indicates SWMU 128 never existed and both the sand trap and leach field associated with the wash rack at Building 4095 are SWMU 127. Is this correct? Has any other corrective action been completed at SWMU 127 since 2008 or has a CAC Proposal been submitted to NMED? We also understand a CAC Proposal has been submitted to NMED for SWMU 128 (including SWMUs 71 and 126). Please provide this supporting data on the AFCEC website.

Government Response: Refer to Question #8 of the Draft RFP Questions.

Question 276. Please provide the letter from NMED (dated November 25, 2009) listing other AOCs and SWMUs eligible for Class 3 Permit Modifications.

Government Response: Refer to Question #8 of the Draft RFP Questions.

Question 277. TS835 – We understand a CSE Phase II for MMRP Site TS835 (Former Skeet Range) has been prepared, but the document has not been provided on the AFCFC website. Please provide this document on the AFCEC website?

Government Response: Refer to Question #8 of the Draft RFP Questions.

Question 278. CW571 – The area between the underground utilities was not characterized out of concern of contacting the lines. Is it anticipated that NMED will agree that no further characterization of this area will be necessary and that the current RFI data will be sufficient to support a NFA determination?

Government Response: The Government cannot pre-determine the decisions of NMED; refer to Table 1 of the SOO.

Question 279. CW571, OT572, OT573, and SS575 – The draft RFI reports for all these sites have arsenic concentrations above the NMED SSL and above site background concentrations. The background argument supports the arsenic concentrations as being within site background levels and that the NFA determination is appropriate. Is it anticipated that NMED will agree with this determination?

Government Response: Refer to Question # 278 of the Draft RFP Questions.

Question 280. ST105 – There is a current contract for drilling an additional 33 monitoring wells to provide additional data on nature and extent of nitrate contamination in the groundwater. Should these be included in future monitoring requirements or is the plan to collect data while drilling and abandon the wells immediately following? Also, will these wells be completed prior to contract award of the PBR?

Government Response: Yes.

Question 281. CG570 – Five new wells are being drilled to characterize EOD Hill. What is the timeframe for completion of these wells and what samples are being collected during this effort?

Government Response: Refer to Question #8 of the Draft RFP Questions.

Question 282. SS039 – Is the facility at this site still active?

Government Response: No.

Question 283. LF029 – What is the date of the most current monitoring report for this site? If it is not currently on the document site for the PBR, when will it be?

Government Response: Refer to Question #8 of the Draft RFP Questions.

Question 284. CG570, EOD Hill - A draft RFI work plan was submitted to NMED for review and disapproved in October 2010. No additional information is available either on the Google site for the RFP nor the Kirtland AFB administrative record site pertaining to this work plan. New wells were proposed for this site and presumably included in the draft RFI work plan which is not available. When will these planning documents, available data, and status of field work be available to PBR bidders?

Government Response: Refer to Question #8 of the Draft RFP Questions.

Question 285. PL567 - Currently, the remedy in place consists of air sparging coupled with passive bioventing. The solar array was damaged and was to be repaired. Have these repairs been completed? Previously, SVE with skimmers was the remedy. Is the SVE system still in place or has it been removed? If it has been removed, is the piping still in place? Is the SVE unit in storage so that it could be resurrected if needed?

Government Response: Refer to Question # 225 of the Draft RFP Questions.