PB98-964013
                                EPA 541-R98-059
                                October 1998
EPA Superfund
      Record of Decision:
      Savannah River Site (USDOE)
      Fire Dept. Hose Training Facility
      Aiken, SC
      8/4/1998

-------
United States Department of Energy

Savannah River Site
Record of Decision
      i
      *
Remedial Alternative Selection for the

Fire Department Hose Training Facility (904-113G)

Operable Unit (U)
WSRC-RP-97-171
Revision 1
April 1998
Westinghouse Savannah River Company
Savannah River Site
Aiken, SC 29808
Prepared for the U. S. Department of Energy under Contract No. DE-AC09-V6-SR18500   SAVANNAH nvti *ut

-------
Record of Decision for the Fire Department Hose Training Facility (904-113G)
Operable Unit (V)
Savannah River Site^April 1998	  	
WSRC-RP-97-171
      Revision 1
      Disclaimer
                         Printed in the United States of America

                                      Prepared for
                               U. S. Department of Energy
                                           and
                        Westinghouse Savannah River Company
                                  Aiken, South Carolina	

-------
Record of Decision for the Fire Department Hose Training Facility (904-113G)                     WSRC-RP-97-171
Operable Unit (U)                                                             Revision I
Savannah River Site, April 1998	
                           RECORD OF DECISION
                   REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVE SELECTION
     FOR THE FIRE DEPARTMENT HOSE TRAINING FACILITY (904-113G)
                            OPERABLE UNIT (U)


                               WSRC-RP-97-171
                                  Revision 1
                                  April 1998


                             Savannah River Site
                            Aiken, South Carolina
                                 Prepared by:
                      Westinghouse Savannah River Company
                                    for the
           U. S. Department of Energy Under Contract DE-AC09-96SR18500
                         Savannah River Operations Office
                              Aiken, South Carolina

-------
Record of Decision for the Fire Department Hose Training Facility (904-113G)                            WSRC-RP-97-171
Operable Unit (U)                                                                                  Revision 1
Savannah River Site, April 1998	
                                This page intentionally left blank.

-------
Record of Decision for the Fire Department Hose Training Facility (904-113G)                      WSRC-RP-97-171
Operable Unit (U)                                                                Revision t
Savannah River Site, April 1998	Declaration 1
DECLARATION FOR THE RECORD OF DECISION

Unit  Name and Location

Fire Department Hose Training Facility (904-113G)
Savannah River Site
Aiken, South Carolina

The Fire Department Hose Training Facility (904-113G) (FDHTF) Operable Unit is listed as a
Resource  Conservation and  Recovery Act (RCRA)  3004(u) solid  waste  management
unit/Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA)
unit in Appendix C  of the  Federal Facility Agreement (FFA) for the Savannah River Site
(SRS).

Statement of Basis and Purpose

This decision document  presents the selected remedial alternative for the FDHTF located at
the SRS  in Aiken, South Carolina. The selected alternative was developed in accordance with
                                                                                 «
RCRA, CERCLA, as amended, and to the extent practicable, the National Oil and Hazardous
Substances Pollution Contingency Plan.  This decision is based on the Administrative Record
File for this specific RCRA/CERCLA unit.

Description of the Selected Remedy

The selected  remedy for FDHTF is No  Action.   The previous  soil removal activities
conducted outside of CERCLA at the FDHTF have eliminated the need to perform additional
remedial action.  Other  remedial  alternatives for this unit were not considered because  the
Baseline Risk Assessment (BRA) showed that all of the constituents of concern  (COCs) were
eliminated because the risks  indicated for the site were not  attributed to activities performed at
the FDHTF.

The risk levels  developed  in the BRA considered  both the future  residential  and future
industrial use scenarios.  The uncertainty analysis performed in the BRA eliminated all human
health and ecological COCs which  meant  that no remedial goal  options (RGOs)  were

-------
Record of Decision for the Tire Department Hose Training Facility (904-113G)                       WSRC-RP-97-171
Operable Unit (U)                                                                   Revision 1
Savannah Riw Site. April 1998	Declaration 2
developed.  There  will be no post-Record of Decision documents  since No Action is the
preferred alternative for the FDHTF operable unit. The South Carolina Department of Health
and Environmental Control has modified the SRS RCRA permit to incorporate No Action as
the selected remedy.

Declaration Statement

Based  qn the FDHTF RCRA Facility Investigation/Remedial Investigation (RFI/RI) Report
and  the Baseline Risk  Assessment, no action  is necessary at  the  FDHTF to ensure the
protection of human health and the  environment.  Since the FDHTF poses no risk to human
health and the environment, and no action is needed, the CERCLA Section 121  requirements
are not applicable.  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 meant to be a permanent solution, final action, for
the FDHTF operable unit.

Section 300.430(f)(ii) of the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency
Plan requires that  Five-Year Review  of Record of  Decision be performed  if hazardous"
substances, pollutants, or contaminants remain at the unit.  The three  Parties have determined
that  a Five-Year  Review of Record of Decision for the FDHTF  operable unit will not be
performed.  The remedial action for this unit (No Action) results in no hazardous substances,
pollutants, or contaminants remaining in the soils of the FDHTF operable unit.

-------
Record of Decision for the Fire Department Hose Training Facility (904-113G)                        WSRC-RP-97-171
Operable Unit (U)                                                                     Revision 1
Savannah River Site, April 1998                       	Declaration 3
Date          Thomas F. Heenan
              Assistant Manager for Environmental Quality
              U. S. Department of Energy, Savannah River Operations Office
                                  V
Date          Richard D. Green
              Acting Division Director
              Waste Management Division
              U. S. Environmental Protection Agency - Region IV
Date          R. Lewis Shaw
              Deputy Commissioner
              Environmental Quality Control
              South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control

-------
Record of Decision for the Fire Department Hose Training Facility (904-113G)                              \VSRC-RP-97-I71
Operable Unit (U)                                                                                     Revision 1
Savannah River Site, April 1998 	                                                           Declaration 4
                                   This page intentionally left blank.

-------
                     DECISION SUMMARY
             REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVE SELECTION
FOR THE FIRE DEPARTMENT HOSE TRAINING FACILITY (904-113G)
                      OPERABLE UNIT (U)


                        WSRC-RP-97-171
                           Revision 1
                           April 1998


                       Savannah River Site
                      Aiken, South Carolina
                           Prepared by:
                Westinghouse Savannah River Company
                             for the
      U. S. Department of Energy Under Contract DE-AC09-96SR18500
                   Savannah River Operations Office
                       Aiken, South Carolina

-------
Record of Decision for the Fire Department Hose Training Facility (904-113G)                            WSRC-RP-97-171
Operable Unit (U)                                                                                  Revision 1
Savannah River Site, April 1998                                                                       Page i of v
                                This page intentionally left blank.

-------
Record of Decision for the Fire Department Hose Training Facility (904-113G)                          WSRC-RP-97-171
Operable Unit 
-------
Record of Decision for the Fire Department Hose Training Facility (904-113G)
Operable Unit (U)
Savannah River Site, April 1998
                                                                                     WSRC-RP-97-171
                                                                                           Revision I
                                                                                          Page iii of v
                                       LIST OF TABLES

                Unit Specific Background Soil Concentrations at the Fire Department Hose
                Training Facility	13
                Unit Specific Background Soil Concentrations at the Fire Department Hose
                Training Facility (Continued)	14
                Summary Statistics for Analytes Detected in  Soil Samples from 0 to  I  ft
                Deep from the Fire Department Hose Training Facility	15
                Summary Statistics for Analytes Detected in  Soil Samples from 0 to  1  ft
                Deep from the Fire Department Hose Training Facility (Continued)	16
                Summary Statistics for Analytes Detected in  Soil Samples from 0 to 4  ft
                Deep from the Fire Department Hose Training Facility	17
                Summary Statistics for Analytes Detected in  Soil Samples from 0 to 4  ft
                Deep from the Fire Department Hose Training Facility (Continued)	18
                Summary Statistics for Analytes Detected in Soil Samples from > 4 ft Deep
                from the Fire Department Hose Training Facility	19
                Summary Statistics for Analytes Detected in Soil Samples from > 4 ft Deep
                from the Fire Department Hose Training Facility (Continued)	20
                RME Risk Characterization Summary: FDHTF Surface Soil (0 to 1 foot)	27
Table 1.

Table 1.

Table 2.
        i
        i
Table 2.

Table 3.

Table 3.

Table 4.

Table 4.

Table 5.
Table 6.

Table 7.

Table 8.

Table 9.

Table 10.

Table 11.
                RME  Risk Characterization  Summary: FDHTF Subsurface Soil (0 to 4
                foot)	28
                RME  Risk Characterization Summary: FDHTF Background Surface Soil
                (Oto 1 foot)	29
                RME  Risk Characterization  Summary: FDHTF Background  Subsurface
                Soil (0 to 4 foot)	30
                Health-Based COCs for Soil and Produce Fire Department Hose Training
                Facility	31
                Summary Statistics for Soil Background Concentrations from 0 to 1 ft in
                the FDHTF	36
                Summary Statistics for Soil Background Concentrations from 0 to 4 ft in
                the FDHTF	37

-------
Record of Decision for the Fire Department Hose Training Facility (904-113G)
Operable Unit (U)
Savannah River Site. April 1998
WSRC-RP-97-171
     Revision 1
    Page iv of v
                               Acronyms

BRA         Baseline Risk Assessment
CERCLA    Comprehensive Environmental Response. Compensation, and Liability Act
COC         Constituent of Concern
COPC       Constituent of Potential Concern
DOE         U. S. Department of Energy
ELCR •      Excess Lifetime Cancer Risk
EPA         Environmental Protection Agency
FDHTF      Fire Department Hose Training Facility (940-113G)
FFA         Federal Facility Agreement
HI           Hazard Index
HQ          Hazard Quotient
PCB         Polychlorinated Biphenyl
RCRA       Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
RfD         Reference Dose
RFI/RI       RCRA Facility Investigation/Remedial Investigation
RGO         Remedial Goal  Option
RME         Reasonable Maximum Exposure
ROD         Record of Decision
SCDHEC    South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control
SCHWMR   South Carolina Hazardous Waste Management Regulations
SRS         Savannah River Site
SVOC       Semi-Volatile Organic Compounds
SWMU      Solid Waste Management Unit
TPH         Total recoverable Petroleum Hydrocarbon
USC         Unit Specific Constituents
VOC         Volatile Organic Compound
WSRC       Westinghouse Savannah River Company

-------
Record of Decision for the fin Department Hose Training Facility (904-113G)                             WSRC-RP-97-171
Operable Unit (U)                                                                                    Revision I
Savannah River Site, April 1998                                                                        Page v of v
                                This page intentionally left blank.

-------
Record of Decision for the Fire Department Hose Training Facility (904-113G)                      WSRC-RP-97-171
Operable Unit (U)                                                              Revision 1
Savannah River Site. April 1998	Page 1 of 42
I.    SITE AND OPERABLE UNIT NAME, LOCATION, AND
      DESCRIPTION

Savannah River Site (SRS) occupies approximately 800 square kilometers (310 square miles)
of land adjacent to the Savannah River, principally in Aiken and Barnwell counties of South
Carolina. SRS is a secured U.S. Government facility with no permanent residents.  SRS  is
located  approximately 40  kilometers  (25  miles) southeast  of Augusta, Georgia, and 32
kilometers (20 miles) south of Aiken, South Carolina.

SRS is owned by the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). Management and operating services
are provided by Westinghouse Savannah River Company (WSRC).   SRS  has historically
produced tritium, plutonium, and other special nuclear materials for national defense.

The Fire Department Hose Training Facility (940-113G) (FDHTF)  is located approximately
200 m (700 ft) northeast of the intersection of Roads C and 6 and approximately 6 m (20 ft)
west and downgradient of a heat exchanger storage pad (Laydown  Area, 745-N) (Figures  1
and 2).  The FDHTF is a source control and groundwater operable  unit which is included  in
the Fourmile Branch watershed (Figure 3).  The FFA lists FDHTF as a RCRA/CERCLA unit,-
requiring evaluation using an investigation/assessment process that  integrates and  combines
the RFT  process with the CERCLA Remedial Investigation (RJ) to determine  the actual or
potential impact to human health and the environment.

II.   OPERABLE   UNIT   HISTORY   AND    COMPLIANCE
      HISTORY

Operable Unit History

The  FDHTF was  built  between  1975 and  March 1979 and operated by the SRS Fire
Department between 1979 and 1982 to train personnel in fighting waste oil fires. The training
facility consisted of an approximately 6 by 12 m (20 by 40 ft) unlined shallow pit surrounded
by an approximately 0.5 m (1.5 ft) high asphalt  dike.  Training exercises typically included
pouring  burnable  oil into  the unit, igniting  the  oil, and then having the fire department
extinguish the fire with water from fire hydrants located  adjacent  to the unit.  No known
hazardous wastes were placed in the unit.

-------
Record of Decision for the Fire Department Hose Training Facility (904-113G)
Operable Unit (U)
Savannah River Site, April 1998	  '                  	
WSRC-RP-97-171
      Revision 1
    Page 2 of<2
Figure 1.      Location of FDHTF at the Savannah River Site
                                                                          FIRE DBPARTUENT
                                                                            HOSE TRAINING
                                                                                FACILITY
                                                                               (904-113G)
                                                                                  SR3
                                                                                  (U)

-------
       Record of Decision for the Fire Department Hose Training Facility (904-113G)
       Operable Unit (U)
       Savannah River Site. April 1998                     	
 WSRC-RP-97-171
      Revision 1
	Page 3 of 42
       Figure 2.      Location of FDHTF in the Central Shops Area of SRS
            o
            o
                                                     o  .
                                                     o
                                                     C\l
                                                     LO
 N61800
N60800  -
N59800
              FI
             N

                                                         rORD BUILDING
                                                          WASTE UNIT
                                                                               \
                                                                 FIRE DEPARTMENT Mi
                                                              HOSE TRAINING  FACILIW
                                                                                             -1

-------
                       UPPER
                       THREE
                       RUNS
                                                                      UPPER
                                                                      THREE
                                                                       RUNS
                                                      Fire Department
                                                     Hose Training Facility
                                                       (904-1130) J
 POUR
 MlLB
BRANCH
 SAVANNAH
   RIVER
FLOOD PLAIN
   SWAMP
                                                                              Lt«NO
                         FOUR MILE BRANCH  WATERSHED
                                                                                                 era
                                                                                                 e
                                                                                                 Ul
                                                                                                 o
                                                                                                 3
                                                                                                 o
                                                                        i?
o
                                                                                                 n
                                                                                                 W

                                                                                                 i
                                                                                                 r»
                                                                        ta
                                                                        r»

                                                                        I

                                                                        I
                                                                            5j>o»
                                                                            h8
                                                                            ii*
                                                                            tr „ o
                                                                            Sis?
                                                                            5 ^R;
                                                                            ?~|
                                                                            *  I
                                                                            a  f
                                                                            "  i)
                                                                            |  3
                                                                               O
                                                                               It
                                                                               •g
                                                                               a

                                                                               a
                                                                               a
                                                                               ?
                                                                                                    af?

-------
Record of Decision for the Fire Department Hose Training Facility (904-113G)                       WSRC-RP-97-171
Operable Unit (U)                                                                  Revision 1
Savannah River Site, April 1998	Page 5 of 42
The SRS Fire Department discontinued use of the FDHTF and recommended the facility for
cleanup and closure  in March 1982.  Available  documentation indicates cleanup  activities
occurred on November  21,  1982  during which 14 loads of oil-contaminated  soil were
excavated from an area approximately 6 by 6 by 1  m (20 by 20 by 3 ft) and transported to the
sanitary landfill. The date of this cleanup activity could not be verified, however, an aerial
photograph from 1983 shows the FDHTF still present.  An additional aerial photograph from
June 1984 shows  the FDHTF pit had been removed and the area excavated. The excavated
area is approximately 10 to 12 m (30 to 40 ft) wide by 15  to 18 m (50 to 60 ft) long and the
pit dikes and visible contaminated soils are removed. An additional area 3 to 5 m (10 to 15 ft)
wide by 10 to 12m  (30  to 40 ft) long, visible on the north side  of the main excavation, is
either an additional remediated area, a pile of the excavated material, or material intended for
backfill. The photographs indicate that either existing documentation is incorrect (11/21/82 is
actually 11/21/83) or  that a more extensive excavation took place between July 1983 and June
1984.  Subsequent inspections during 1985 indicated that an additional area approximately 1m
by  1 m (3 by 3 ft), of  visibly contaminated  soil was placed here  from an unknown source.
This area was also excavated to a depth of approximately 0.6 m (2 ft) and the soil removed
from the site in a manner similar to the 1982/84 cleanup activities.

SRS Compliance  History

At  SRS,  waste materials regulated  under  RCRA are  managed in accordance  with  the
requirements of RCRA.  Certain SRS activities have required treatment, storage, disposal or
post-closure permits under RCRA. Non-regulated units, called solid waste management units
(SWMU), include any  activity where hazardous  constituents may remain uncontrolled and
may potentially release  to the environment.  Investigation  and potential corrective action tor
these SWMU(s) are mandated under RCRA 3004(u). On September 5, 1995, SRS received a
hazardous waste  permit from  SCDHEC which  includes corrective  action requirements
Specifically,  pan V of the permit mandates that SRS establish and implement a RCRA Facility
Investigation (RFI) Program to fulfill the requirements specified in Section 3004(u) of RCRA.

Hazardous substance, as defined by CERCLA, are also present in the environment at the SRS.
On December 21, 1989, SRS was  included on the National Priorities List.  This  inclusion
created a need to integrate the established  RFI Program with CERCLA requirements to

-------
Record of Decision for the Tire Department Hose Training Facility (904-113G)                      WSRC-RP-97-171
Operable Unit (U)                                                                 Revision 1
Savannah River Site, April 1998                                                       Page 6 of 42
provide for a focused environmental program. In accordance with Section 120 of CERCLA,
DOE has negotiated a Federal Facility Agreement (FFA, 1993) with the EPA and SCDHEC
to coordinate remedial activities at SRS  into one comprehensive strategy which fulfills these
dual regulatory requirements.

The RFI/RI/BRA for the Fire Department Hose Training Facility (904-113G) was completed
in 1997.  The  results of this report indicate that  there is no impact (or potential impact)  to
human health or the environment from the FDHTF. The previous soil removal activities at the
FDHTF have eliminated the need to perform additional  remedial action.  Therefore, No
Action is warranted.  No other alternatives were considered.

According to EPA guidance, if there is no current or potential threat to human health and the
environment and No Action is warranted, the CERCLA 121 requirements are not triggered.
This means that there is no need to evaluate other alternatives or the No Action alternative
against the nine criteria specified under CERCLA.

The remedy selected satisfies both the  CERCLA and RCRA 3004(u) requirements.  The
SCDHEC has modified the  SRS RCRA permit to incorporate the selected remedy.

III.   HIGHLIGHTS OF COMMUNITY PARTICIPATION

Both RCRA and CERCLA require that the public be given an opportunity  to review and
comment on  the  draft permit modification and proposed  remedial alternative.   Public
participation requirements   are listed in South  Carolina  Hazardous Waste Management
Regulation  (SCHWMR) R.61-79.124 and Sections  113   and  117 of  CERCLA.   These
requirements include establishment of an Administrative  Record File that documents the
investigation and selection  of the  remedial alternatives for addressing the FDHTF soils and
groundwater.   The Administrative Record File  must  be established  at or near the facility  at
issue.  The SRS  Public Involvement Plan (DOE,  1994) is designed  to facilitate public
involvement in the decision-making process for permitting,  closure,  and the  selection  of
remedial alternatives.   The SRS  Public Involvement  Plan addresses the requirements  of
RCRA, CERCLA, and the  National Environmental Policy Act.  SCHWMR R.61-79.124 and
Section 117(a) of CERCLA,  as  amended, required the advertisement of the draft  permit
modification and  notice of any   proposed  remedial  action  and provided  the  public  an

-------
Record of Decision for the Fire Department Hose Training Facility (904-113G)                       WSRC-RP-97-171
Operable Unit (U)                                                                   Revision 1
Savannah River Site. April 1998	Page 7 of 42
opportunity to participate in the selection  of the remedial action.   The  Statement of
Basis/Proposed Plan for the Fire Department Hose Training Facility (940-1UG) (WSRC.
1997b),  which is  part of  the Administrative Record  File, highlights key aspects of the
investigation and identifies the preferred action for addressing the FDHTF.

The FFA Administrative  Record File,  which contains the information  pertaining to the
selection of the response action, is available at the EPA office and at the following locations:

U. S. Department of Energy                 Asa H. Gordon Library
Public Reading Room                       Savannah State University
Gregg-Graniteville Library                   Tompkins Road
University of South Carolina-Aiken           Savannah, Georgia 31404
171 University Parkway                     (912) 356-2183
Aiken, South Carolina 29801
(803)641-3465
Thomas Cooper Library                     Reese Library
Government Documents Department          Augusta State University
University of South Carolina                 2500 Walton Way
Columbia, South Carolina 29208              Augusta, Georgia 30910
(803)777-4866                             (706)737-1744
The  public  was  notified of the public comment period through  mailings  of the SRS
Environmental Bulletin, a newsletter sent to approximately 3500 citizens in South Carolina
and  Georgia, through  notices in the Aiken Standard,  the Allendale Citizen Leader, the
Augusta  Chronicle, the Barnwell People-Sentinel,  and The State newspapers.  The public
comment period was also announced on local radio stations.

The  45-day public comment period for the  SB/PP and the draft RCRA permit modification
began on December 10, 1997 and ended on January 23, 1998.  No comments from the public
were received during this period. Therefore, a Responsiveness Summary will not be required
as part of Appendix A of this Record of Decision.

-------
Record of Decision for the Fire Department Hose Training Facility (904-113G)                      WSRC-RP-97-J71
Operable Unit (U)                                                               Revision 1
Savannah River Site, April 1998	Page 8 of 42
IV.  SCOPE AND ROLE OF OPERABLE UNIT WITHIN THE
      SITE STRATEGY

The  overall strategy for addressing the FDHTF was to:  (1) characterize the waste unit by
delineating the nature and extent of contamination and identifying the media of concern
(perform the RFI/RI); (2) perform a baseline  risk  assessment to evaluate media of concern,
COCs, exposure pathways, and characterize potential risks; and (3) evaluate and perform a
final  action to remediate, as needed, the identified media of concern.

The  FDHTF is a source control and groundwater operable unit which is included in the
Fourmile Branch watershed.  There are no surface waters present near the unit, but a small
wet weather conveyance northwest of the unit runs in a northerly direction.   An unnamed
tributary of Fourmile Branch is located approximately 460 m (1,500 ft) to the north, northeast
of the FDHTF.

The  SRS has recently concluded a surface and subsurface soil investigation at the FDHTF.
Based upon preliminary characterization results, SCDHEC and EPA concurred with DOE's
proposal to separate the operable unit into two operable units (i.e., the Ford Building Waste
Site and the Fire Department Hose Training Facility).  SCDHEC and EPA also agreed that the
investigation at the FDHTF adequately characterized contamination within that unit and along
potential migration pathways.  This ROD will propose a final remedial action for the operable
unit at the FDHTF.

V.   SUMMARY OF OPERABLE UNIT CHARACTERISTICS

Media Assessment

The  soil and  groundwater  sampling  activities  conducted in  1996 at the FDHTF  and
background locations (Figure 4) provided data on the types and extent of constituents present
and  supplemented soil gas surveys conducted in  1986 and 1992.  The primary source of
contamination at the FDHTF would be the soil impacted by oils and associated fuels burned at
the facility.  This soil was removed during 1982/84 cleanup activities.

-------
             CPT-1
WUM
                  Bfoec-
                                                                      F6f08C-2
                                                                        A
                                                              CPT-2
                                                                              FBfOeG-4
                                                                                A
                                                                               .   roflvfft


                                                                              CPT"3 UXATION
                                                                                 I >

                                                                                 FOfN ™ FOTF-
                                                                                   cso i
                                                                                FIRE DEPARTMENT
fp,.4
c" 4
                                                                              HOSf TRAINING FACIUTY
       LEGEND


      •-- EXISTING WELL


      A  BACKGROUND BORNGS


      •  SOI BORNC


      4  CONE PENETROICrER
                                                                                                        0  M   M  n   00
                    CENTRAL SHOPS FIRE  DEPARTMENT HOSE  TRAINING  FACILITY
                                                                                                                   MLM4965
                                                                                                                                I
                                 O
                                 3,


                                 O

                                 3.

                                 era

o

y

69
3
a


n

n
                                                                                                                                re
                                                                                                                                a
     K»O»

     |1|
     I or o.
     Is; o

     fiJ?
     •§f
                                                                                                                                        1
                                                                                                                                    •b  ••
                                                                                                                                    a  ?
                                                                                                                                    *••  ^J
                                                                                                                                    s  -
                                                                                                                                    00
                                                                                                                                        H



                                                                                                                                        3
                                         u
                                         o
                                         en
                                         99
                                         O

-------
Record of Decision for the Fire Department Hose Training Facility (904-113G)                       WSRC-RP-97-171
Operable Unit (U)                                                                   Revision 1
Savannah River Site, April 1998	Page I Oof 42
A Conceptual Site  Model was prepared which shows the potential  human  health  and
ecological  receptors and  exposure pathways to assist in  determining  what -samples were
needed during characterization. This Conceptual Site Model is shown in Figure 5.

During the 1996 site characterization the surface soil was sampled from 0 to 0.3 m (0 to 1 ft)
and subsurface soil in the interval from 0 to  1.2 m (0 to 4 ft) at 5 locations in the FDHTF.
Samples  received analysis for a full  analytical  suite:   metals/inorganics, volatile organic
compounds  (VOCs),  semi-volatile    organic   compounds  (SVOCs),   and   pesticides/
polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs)/dioxins and furans.   Past  records  and activities did  not
indication that radionuclides had ever been disposed of at the FDHTF, so samples were only
tested  for  radionuclide  indicators  and were  not speciated.   Manganese and two SVOCs,
benzo(a)pyrene and benzo(g,h,i)perylene, were identified as unit specific  constituents (USCs)
in the surface soil (0-1 ft).  No VOCs, pesticides, PCBs, dioxins, furans or radionuclides were
identified as USCs for surface soils (0-1').

Eight metals were  identified as USCs  in the subsurface soil (0-4  ft):  aluminum, arsenic,
beryllium, chromium, iron, manganese, sodium, and vanadium.  Two SVOCs, benzo(a)pyrene
and benzo(g,h,i)perylene,  were identified as USCs in the subsurface soil. The SVOCs were
not detected deeper than 0.3 m (1.0 ft).  No VOCs, pesticides, PCBs, dioxins, furans or
radionuclides were identified as USCs for subsurface soils.

Seven metals were identified as USCs in the deep soil (1.2 to 4.0 m [4 to 13 ft]):   aluminum,
arsenic, beryllium, chromium,  iron,  sodium, and vanadium.   No VOCs, SVOCs,  pesticides,
PCBs, dioxins, furans or radionuclides were identified as USCs for the deep soils  at FDHTF
Tables 1  through 4 summarize the contaminants found  in the background, 0-1 ft deep, 0-4 ti
deep, and > 4 ft deep soil samples.

The  historical groundwater monitoring data has  resulted  in  an analytical suite  refined to
aluminum  and total recoverable petroleum  hydrocarbons (TPH).   No TPHs  have been
detected during  the periodic  monitoring  program,  so groundwater sampling  was  not
conducted  in the 1996 investigation.

The groundwater migration pathway evaluation determined that no constituents are present in the
soil in quantities sufficient  to migrate through the soil to cause  concentrations above acceptable

-------
Record of Decision for the Fire Department Hose Training Facility (904-113G)                        WSRC-RP-97-171
Operable Unit (U)                                                                     Revision I
Savannah River Site, April 1998                                                    	Page 11 of 42
levels.  Previous groundwater monitoring data do  not indicate that the groundwater has been
impacted by the FDHTF or any other source of contaminants.  The constituents-present in the
soil of the FDHTF at concentrations above two times their average background concentration
were screened against EPA generic soil screening levels using a dilution attenuation  factor
(DAF) of 20 to identify those which would require vadose zone transport modeling.  The use
of the generic DAF of 20 is based on the unit source being less than 0.5 acres and the  fact that
the groundwater is not near the surface (i.e., depth to groundwater is approximately 50 feet).
No constituent is present in the FDHTF soiJ at an average concentration exceeding its generic
screening level with a DAF of 20.

The results of the FDHTF characterization study are summarized in Tables  1  through 4.
Table 1 lists the data for the background soil samples. Tables 2 through 4 contain the data for
the 0 to 1 ft, 0 to 4 ft, and greater than 4 ft deep soil intervals, respectively.

-------
PRIMARY
SOURCE
 PRIMARY
  RELEASE
MECHANISM
                                 SECONDARY
                                   SOURCE
SECONDARY
  RELEASE
MECHANISM
                    PATHWAY

EXPOSURE
ROUTE
POTENTIAL RECEPTORS
KNOWN
On- Unit
Worker
HYPOTHETICAL
Induilrtol
Worker
On-Unll
RetMtnt
ECOLOGICAL
Tcrmlrul
Aquatic

Surface
Soil
1

Ezcontion/ I
-H
Suhiurftcc
SoU

*•
-.>
Vol«iliu«»

-*•
H





Direct Comae!
-^
-*-
-

Direct Contact

"X



Air(Vipor)

Air (Dull)

| Surface Soil

^M Subsurface Soil
— ••

-*i Inh^ition
•
•
•
o
—

[-H InhilMion

h


•
•
•
o
—

Infeiiion
Dermal Contact
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
o



Inpition
Dermal Contact
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
0
—


Bl°" f~H Infeition

Ground witcr
—
—
•
•
—

— »
Inhalation
Dermal Contact














—
LEfiEJSC
  _«,.   < Pithwiyi. current, hiilorical. and future
  0    > Principal paihwayi for quantitative evaluation
        • Paihwayi for qualitative evaluation
        • Incomplete paihwayi
                                                                       Note: Since no COCi ire idtnlified for 
-------
Record of Decision for the Tire Department Hose Training Facility (904-113G)
Operable Unit (D)
Savannah River Site, April 1998
WSRC-RP-97-171
      Revision 1
    Page 13 of 42
Table 1.       Unit Specific  Background  Soil  Concentrations at the Fire Department
                Hose Training Facility                                            -
Analyte (Units)
Metals/Inorganics
(mg/kg)
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Calcium
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Cyanide
Iron
Lead
Magnesium
Manganese
Mercury
Nickel
Potassium
Selenium
Sodium
Vanadium
Zinc
SVOCs (ug/kg)
Di-n-octyl phthalate
Phenol
Surface Bkgd
(0-1 ft)

6300
0.663
3.26
12.9
0.103
0.27
155
14.2
0.512
11.2
0.16
11200
7.68
78.7
21.7
0.0435
1.94
71
ND
35.2
30.4
6.28

ND
ND
2X
Surface
Bked

12600
1.33
6.52
25.8
0.206
0.54
310
28.4
1.02
22.4
0.32
22400
15.4
157
43.4
0.087
3.88
142
ND
70.4
60.8
12.6

ND
ND
Subsurface Bkgd
(0-4 ft)

5890
0.579
2.87
13.3
0.0972
0.307
152
12.5
0.49
6.95
0.183
10500
6.04
79.4
19.7
0.0412
1.66
69.1
0.489
29.8
27.2
4.52

ND
ND
2X Subsurface
Bkgd

11800
1.16
5.74
26.6
0.194
0.614
304
25
0.98
13.9
0.366
21000
12.1
159
39.4
0.0824
3.32
138
0.978
59.6
54.4
9.04

ND
ND
Deep Soil
Bkgd
(>4ft)

4700
0.801
3.52
5.73
0.0754
0.64
88.4
15.9
0.232
4.15
0.181
18200
6.38
74.3
2.42
0.035
0.844
48.1
1.74
29.9
67.7
2.17

229
44.9
2X
Deep Bkgd

9400
1.6
7.04
11.5
0.151
1.28
177
31.8
0.464
8.3
0.362
36400
12.8
149
4.84
0.07
1.69
96.2
3.48
59.8
135
4.34

458
89.8
   The background concentration is the mean of all results above the detection limit for samples from stations FBFDB-
   01. FBFDB-02, FBFDB-03. FDFDB-04 and FBFDB-05. "ND" indicates that the analyte was not detected in any
   background samples in that depth interval.

-------
Record of Decision for the Fire Department Hose Training Facility (904-113G)
Operable Unit (U)
Savannah River Site, April 1998
WSRC-RP-97.I7I
      Revision I
    Page 14 of 42
Table 1.       Unit Specific Background Soil  Concentrations  at the  Fire  Department
                Hose Training Facility (Continued)                             _
Analyte (Units)
Radionuciides (pCi/g)
Aciinium-228
Americium-241
Antimony-t24
Aniimony-125
Barium- 133
Cesium- 134
Cesium- 137
Cobalt-60
Europium- 152
Europium- 155
Gross Alpha
Iodine- 129
Lead-212
rianganese-54
Neptunium-239
Non-volatile Beta
Plutonium-238
>otassium-40
>romethium-146
Promethium-147
^adium-226
Rsdium-228
Ruthenium- 106
Strontium-90
rechnetium-99
rhorium-228
rhorium-232
rhorium-234
Fin-113
Uranium-235
Yuriunv88
Zinc-65
Surface Bkgd
(0-1 ft)

1.07
0.865
0.06
ND
ND
ND
0.175
ND
0.33
0.263
14.7
5.05
1.47
ND
ND
14.6
0.32
1.16
ND
ND
0.22
1.69
ND
ND
0.215
1.44
0.967
1.49
ND
ND
ND
ND
2X
Surface Bkgd

2.14
1.73
0.12
ND
ND
ND
0.35
ND
0.66
0.526
29.4
10.1
2.94
ND
ND
29.2
0.64
2.32
ND
ND
0.44
3.38
ND
ND
0.43
2.88
1.93
2.98
ND
ND
ND
ND
Subsurface
Bkgd
(0-4 ft)

1.14
0.795
0.06
ND
ND
ND
0.175
0.06
0.34
0.377
16.7
5.05
1.48
ND
ND
13.7
0.23
1.26
ND
ND
0.273
1.36
ND
0.47
0.148
1.37
1.08
1.35
ND
0.13
0.05
ND
2X
Subsurface
Bkgd

2.28
1.59
0.12
ND
ND
ND
0.35
0.12
0.68
0.754
33.4
10.1
2.96
ND
ND
27.4
0.46
2.52
ND
ND
0.546
2.72
ND
0.94
0.296
2.74
2.16
2.7
ND
0.26
O.I
ND
Deep
Bkgd
(>4ft)

1.28
0.842
ND
0.15
0.07
0.06
ND
ND
0.302
0.253
18.1
ND
1.55
0.06
0.87
16.9
0.295
1.65
0.05
1.12
0.257
2.83
2.1
0.78
0.176
1.56
1.45
1.63
0.08
0.14
ND
0.08
2X
Deep Bkgd

2.56
1.68
ND
0.3
0.14
0.12
ND
ND
0.604
0.506
36.2
ND
3.1
0.12
1*74
33.8
0.59
3.3
O.I
2.24
0.514
5.66
4.2
1.56
0.352
3.12
2.9
3.26
0.16
0.28
ND
0.16
    The background concentration is the mean of all results above the detection limit for samples from stations FBFDB-
    01. FBFDB^)2. FBFDB-03. FDFDB-04 and FBFDB-05. "ND" indicates that the analyte was not detected in any
    background samples in that depth interval.

-------

Analyte (Units)
Freq. of
Detection
Metals/Inorganics (mg/kg)
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Rcryllium
Cndmium
Calcium
Climmium
Cohnli
Copper
Cyanide
Iron
Lead
M.ipncsium
Manganese
Mercury
Nickel
Potassium
Silver
.Srxlmm
!\'.inadium
I/IIK-
5/5
1/5
4/5
5/5
3/5
3/5
5/5
5/5
5/5
•4/5
1/5
5/5
5/5
5/5
5/5
1/5
5/5
5/5
3/5
5/5
5/5
5/5
Minimum
Detected

1670
0.556
1.2
9
0.0558
0.051
78.8
2.5
0.405
4.3
0.091
1480
4.7
41.9
28
0.03
0.74
54.8
0.267
33.5
3.6
2.5
Mean
Result

3690
1.58
3.01
13.5
0.0719
0.0847
156
9.02
0.61
4.12
0.338
6820
9.58
72
37.1
0.0607
1.73
74.3
0.715
54.9
17
10.7
Maximum
Detected

5110
0.556
3.7
19.4
0.107
0.119
302
15
0.822
5.2
0.091
11100
12.9
93.6
65.3
0.03
3.3
90.3
1.9
69.1
29.9
22.8
Human
Health
Criteria
Source

RBC*0.1
RBC*0.1
RBC
RBC*0.1
RBC
RBC*0.1
RDA
RBC*0.1
RBC'0.1
RBC'0.1
RBC'0.1
RBC*0.1
RBC*0.1
RDA
RBC*0.1
RBC*0.1
RBC*0.1
RDA
RBC*0.1

RBC*0.1
RBC*0.1
Human
Health
Criteria

7800
3.1
0.43
550
0.15
3.9
1000000
39
470
310
160
2300
40
1000000
39
.0.78
160
393273
39
NA
55
2300
>Human
Health
Criteria



YES








YES


YES




YES


2X Bkgd

12600
1.33
6.52
25.8
0.206
0.54
310
28.4
1.02
22.4
0.32
22400
15.4
157
43.4
0.087
3.88
142
ND
70.4
60.8
12.6
Maximum
Detect
> 2X Bkgd















YES



YES


YES
Unit
Specific
Contaminant















YES







o cpi
*  i
"2, I
3  S
3  ^

f!
3  8
O —,
«  O^
•a  i
to  ^

3  §
rt  ^
*+ J?


li
H n

i. i

5' 5'
«  W

S  -
£: V
sr g

   •o_
   ?T


   Ir
   3
   o
      1  I

      I  f
         3
         s
         H


         5'
         O
       7
g

-------
Analyte (Units)
SVOCs(^ig^g)
Dcnzo(a)anthrace
ne
BenzcXaJpyrene
Benzo(b)(luorant
icne
Benzo(g,h,i)peryl
cne
Benzo(k)nuorant
hene
Benzoic acid
Bis(2-ethylhcxyl)
phihalate
Chrysenc
Fluoranthene
IndencK 1,2,3-
c,d)pyrene
Pyrene
VOCs (nfi/kg)
Dichloromeihanc
(methylene
chloride)
Toluene
Freq. of
Detection

1/5
1/5
1 /5
1/5
1/5
1/5
1/5
1/5
1/5
1/5
1/5

1/5
1/5
Minimum
Detected

94.6
144
317
121
219
60.3
465
180
112
125
99.8

6.84
2.36
Mean
Result

296
306
340
301
321
1390
233
313
299
302
297

4.7
2.57
Maximum
Detected

94.6
144
317
121
219
60.3
465
180
112
125
99.8

6.84
2.36
Human
Health
Criteria
Source

RBC
RBC
RBC

RBC
RBC*0.1
RBC
RBC
RBC*0.1
RBC
RBC*0.1

RBC
RBC*0.1
Human
Health
Criteria

880
88
880
NA
8800
31000000
46000
88000
310000
880
230000

85000
1600000
>Human
Health
Criteria


YES

YES










2X Bkgd

ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND

ND
ND
Maximum
Detect
> 2X Bkgd

YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES

YES
YES
Unit x
Specific V
Contaminant


YES

YES










' Mean includes all results with no detects set to one half the sample quantnaiion limit except for radinnuclides which were included at the full reported value.

 ND indicates an analyte that was not detected in the background samples for this depth class.

 NA mrtir.iie< an analyte that does not have a human health screening criteria
                                                                                                                                      K>
                                                                                                                                  ?£


                                                                                                                                  »l
                                                                                                                                  O  "I
                                                                                                                                  3  ^
                                                                                                                                  ~  (/}


                                                                                                                                  ^  I
                                                                                                                                  ""J  5!'

                                                                                                                                      £?
                                                                                                                                  D  -,
                                                                                                                                  ft  c?
                                                                                                                                  •o  t
                                                                                                                                  M  s.
                                                                                                                                  S5
                                                                                                                                  o   D
                                                                                                                                  s   »
                                                                                                                                  H  8

                                                                                                                                  I  H

                                                                                                                                  3'  3'
                                                                                                                                 00
                                                                                                                                      en
                                                                                                                                  fi)   K
                                                                                                                                  I  cn
                                                                                                                                  c  M


                                                                                                                                 ^1
                                                                                                                                  o   K
                                                                                                                                 '5   o

                                                                                                                                  I!
 S?ojB

 il*
 iia
 |»o

 If*
 •>   *
 i   *
 i   ?
 s   ;
    X

    &
    n

    H

    73
    O
2 50 50

sJ2
**2

-------

; Analyte (Units)
1
1 Metals/Inorganics
ii (mg/kg)
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
I3arium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Calcium
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Cyanide
Iron
Lead
Magnesium
Manganese
Mercury
Nickel
Potassium
Selenium
Silver
Sodium
1 Vanadium
! Zinc
Freq. of
Detection

10/10
3/ 10
9/10
10/10
8/10
7/10
10/10
10/10
10/10
7/10
2/10
10/10
10/10
10/10
10/10
3/10
10/10
10/10
1/10
4/10
10/10
10/10
10/10
Minimum
Detected

1670
0.549
1.2
9
0.0558
0.051
78.1
2.5
0.405
4.3
0.091
1480
3.8
41.9
8
0.02
0.74
54.8
2.1
0.11
25.9
3.6
2.5
Average
Result

5730
1.56
3.4
19.5
0.104
0.165
247
14.3
0.699
4.25
0.365
12600
8.07
117
31.2
0.0594
1.98
109
5.28
0.583
58.8
27.9
7.35
Maximum
Detected

12500
1.4
7.3
41
0.201
0.638
735
45.8
1
8.1
0.115
44000
12.9
248
65.3
0.052
3.6
224
2.1
1.9
89.8
84.6
22.8
Human Health
Criteria
Source

RBC*0.1
RBC*0.1
RBC
RBC'0.1
RBC
RBC*0.1
RDA
RBC*0.1
RBC*0.1
RBC'0.1
RBC*0.1
RBC*0.1
RBC'0.1
RDA
RBC*0.1
RBC*0.1
RBC*0.1
RDA
RBC*0.1
RBC«0.1

RBC*0.1
RBC'0.1
Human
Health
Criteria

7800
3.1
0.43
550
0.15
3.9
1000000
39
470
310
160
2300
40
1000000
39
0.78
160
393273
39
39
NA
55
2300
>Human
Health
Criteria

YES

YES

YES


YES



YES


YES





YES
YES

2X Bkgd

11800
1.16
5.74
26.6
0.194
0.614
304
25
0.98
13.9
0.366
21000
12.1
159
39.4
0.0824
3.32
138
0.978
ND
59.6
54.4
9.04
Maximum
Detect >
2X Bkgd

YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES


YES
YES
YES
YES

YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
Unit Specific
Contaminant

YES

YES

YES


YES



YES


YES





YES
YES

 «  §
 '  a
 ?!
 3  ^
 jr  ET
 23  §!'
 3  8
 D  M,
•a  i
 £X  "^
 3  »
 «  c^
 K  ^.
 o  O
 ^J  ^
 |  2
 5'  5'
^  g3
 »  S;
 i  ^
^  g
   •a
    S"
    3
    o
    e
    ji.
         go-o-
         5- S" 2,
         li 'S R-
         tn S 5'
i   I
    it
    ?
   X
   &
   n
   ?


 A T)
 H

-------
Analyte (Units)
SVOCs ((tg/kg)
Benzo(a)anthracene
Bcnzo(a)pyrcne
Benzo(b)nuoranthene
Benzo(g,h,i)perylene
Benzo(k)fluoranthene
Benzole acid
Bis(2-cthylhexyl)
phthalate
Chrysenc
Di-n-butyl phthalate
Di-n-octyl phthalate
Fluoranthene
Indeno(l,2,3-c.d)
pyrene
Pyrene
VOCs (jig^tg)
Dichloromcthane
(methylene chloride)
Toluene
Freq. of
Detection

/IO
/10
/IO
no
no
/IO
2/10
1/10
I/ 10
2/10
1/10
1/10
2/10

2/10
1/10
Minimum
Detected

94.6
144
|_ 317
121
219
60.3
386
180
194
39.9
112
125
90.2

6.84
2.36
Average
Result

246
251
268
249
259
1190
233
255
234
252
248
249
235

5.47
2.79
Maximum
Detected

94.6
144
317
121
219
60.3
465
180
194
335
112
125
99.8

9.55
2.36
Human Health
Criteria
Source

RBC
RBC
RBC

RBC
RBC*0.1
RBC
RBC
RBC*0.1
RBC*0.1
RBC*0.1
RBC
RBC*0.1

RBC
RBC'0.1
Human
Health
Criteria

880
88
880
NA
8800
31000000
46000
88000
780000
160000
310000
880
230000

85000
1600000
>Human
Health
Criteria


YES

YES












2X
Bkgd

ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND
ND

ND
ND
Maximum
Detect >
2X Bkgd

YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES

YES
YES
Unit Specific
Contaminant


YES

YES












'Mean includes all results with nondetecu set 10 one half the sample quantiiation limit except for ndionuclides which were included at the full reported value.

NO indicates an analyie that was not detected in the background samples for this depth class.

NA indicates an analyie that does not have a human health screening criteria.
                                                                                                                                                                                     s?
                                                                                                                                                                                     CT
                                                                                                                                                                                     S"
                                                                                                                                                                                          M
                                                                                                                                                                                           •-   *•!
                                                                                                                                                                                           I   ?
                                                                                                                                                                                           <  s-
                                                                                                                                                                                                |
                                                                                                                                                                                                =;

                                                                                                                                                                                               x

                                                                                                                                                                                                «
                                                                                                                                                                                                o
                                                                                                                                                                                                
-------
Analyte
(Units)
Metals/Inoi
(mg/k
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Calcium
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Cyanide
Iron
Lead
Magnesium
Manganese
Mercury
Nickel
Potassium
Selenium
Sodium
Vanadium
7inc
Freq. of
Detection
•ganics
e)
15/15
9/15
12/15
15/15
11/15
14/15
15/15
15/15
11/15
15/15
4/ 15
15/15
15/15
15/15
15/15
2/15
15/15
15/15
8/15
15/15
15/15
9/15
Minimum
Detected

2960
0.482
1.4
2.4
0.0695
0.169
44.1
4.9
0.163
3.4
0.104
10200
6.4
44.8
1.2
0.02
0.27
39.8
1.4
27.5
28.4
2.2
Average
Result

7170
1.31
5.06
7.67
0.12
0.455
188
22.9
0.365
6.59
0.387
33400
11.9
142
11.8
0.0717
1.17
98.8
4.32
65.5
80.3
6.15
Maximum
Detected

12600
1.9
11.1
26.9
0.201
0.938
1190
59.4
0.538
13
0.306
76200
24.6
574
32.8
0.03
2.9
198
5.5
86.8
166
5.2
Human
Health
Criteria
Source

RBC*0.1
RBC*0.1
RBC
RBC*0.1
RBC
RBC*0.1
RDA
RBC*0.1
RBC*0.1
RBC*0.1
RBC*0.1
RBC'0.1
RBC*0.1
RDA
RBC*0.1
RBC»0.1
RBC*0.1
RDA
RBC*0.1

RBC*0.1
RBC*0.1
Human
Health
Criteria

7800
3.1
0.43
550
0.15
3.9
1000000
39
470
310
160
2300
40
1000000
39
0.78
160
393273
39
NA
55
2300
>Human
Health
Criteria

YES

YES

YES


YES



YES







YES
YES

2X
Background

9400
1.6
7.04
11.5
0.151
1.28
177
31.8
0.464
8.3
0.362
36400
12.8
149
4.84
0.07
1.69
96.2
3.48
59.8
135
4.34
Maximum
Detect
>2X
Bkgd

YES
YES
YES
YES
YES

YES
YES
YES
YES

YES
YES
YES
YES

YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
Unit
Specific
Contaminant*

YES

YES

YES


YES



YES







YES
YES


S3  C/5
8J   O
           || 3

-------
Analyte (Units)
Freq. of
Detection
Minimum
Detected
Average
Result
Maximum
Detected
Human
Health
Criteria
Source
Human
Health
Criteria
>Human
Health
Criteria
2X
Background
SVOCs (ng/kg)
Benzoic acid
Bis(2-cthylhexyl)
phthalate
Di-n-octyl
phthalate
VOCs(jig^g)
Acetone
Dichloromethane
(melhylene
chloride)
4/15
3/15
8/15

1/15
3/15
44.6
63.5
69

17.5
10.5
756
178
234

6.91
5.79
84.7
110
462

17.5
13.2
RBC*0.1
RBC
RBC*0.1

RBC'0.1
RBC
31000000
46000
160000

780000
85000






ND
ND
458

ND
ND
Maximum
Detect
>2X
Bkgd

YES
YES
YES

YES
YES
Unit
Specific
Contaminant







1 Mean includes all results with nondetects set to one half the sample quantitation limit except for radionuclides which were included at

the full reported value.

ND indicates an analyte (hat was not detected in the background samples for this depth class.

NA indicates an analyte that does not have a human health screening criteria.
                                                                                                                                f
                                                                                                                                r
                                                                                                                                    s
                                                                                                                                    cr
                                                                                                                                    5"
     I
                                                                                                                                5   P

                                                                                                                                3   K-
                                                                                                                                69   ^

                                                                                                                                3.   >



                                                                                                                                1   1.



                                                                                                                                X   &
H  ff

3  £
a  —
90  3


S?  W5
63  A
n  S.
                                                                                                                                O  ~


                                                                                                                               n
                                                                                                                                   V
                                                                                                                                   Xk.
r*f
1 a |


i|s
s a- *
n C5 2.
|fi~ g


*  *

t  f
—  '*!
2  f
             a
             S


             51
            '5

-------
Record of Decision for the Fire Department Hose Training Facility (904-113G)                        WSRC-RP-97-171
Operable Unit (U)                                                                   Revision 1
Savannah River Site. April 1998                                                        Page 21 of 42
VI.   SUMMARY OF OPERABLE UNIT RISKS

As a component of the remedial investigation process, a baseline risk assessment was prepared
for the FDHTF.  The baseline risk assessment consists of human health and ecological risk'
assessments.   Summary information  for the human health and ecological risk assessments
follows.

HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT

The human health risk assessment characterizes both  the  potential risk from exposure  to
carcinogenic  substances and adverse health effects from noncarcinogens to human receptors
exposed to unit-related constituents under  current and future land use conditions (Figure 6).
Figure 6 indicates the future land use for  N-Area (Central Shops) as  recommended  by the
Citizens Advisory Board which was based on current nuclear industrial areas with a  buffer.
The risks  listed in this section were derived from the BRA (WSRC, 1997a) which used the
data obtained from the RFI/RI characterization.

The BRA designates the Constituents of Potential Concern (COPCs) based on  a conservative.
screen against background concentrations and the relative  potential of the chemicals to cause
toxic or carcinogenic effects.  Constituents  which have concentrations in soil which produce a
threshold risk less than the risk-based concentration levels  are screened from further analysis.
Threshold risk is defined as constituent concentrations that exceed either a  cancer risk  of
1 x 10"6 or a hazard quotient (HQ) of 1. An HQ of 0.1  was actually used for screening within
the BRA to account for potential additive effects for noncarcinogenic constituents.  Three
land use assumptions were made to describe the human receptors that may be exposed to unit-
related constituents.  Potential receptors are expected to differ for the current and future land use
scenarios.  The possible receptor under the current land use  scenario includes the known on-unit
worker. The possible receptors under  the future land  use scenario include the on-unit industrial
worker and the on-unit resident (adult and child).

Based on the results of the risk assessment, COPCs that contribute significantly to a pathway
having a significant human cancer risk or human noncarcinogenic hazard or are determined to
pose  unacceptable  ecological risk are designated  as  preliminary constituents of concern
(COCs).  The preliminary COCs are further defined as either  primary or secondary COCs.

-------
Record of Decision for the Fire Department Hose Training Facility (904-113G)                        WSRC-RP-97-171
Operable Unit (U)                                                                     Revision 1
Savannah River Site-April 1998	Page 22 of 42
Final COCs are developed through an uncertainty analysis to inform decision-makers about
the relative significance of the preliminary COCs, and to help focus on risk decisions.

Preliminary Human Health  primary COCs are constituents"^ a  total exposure pathway
(media/receptor/route)  with a cumulative  noncancer hazard greater than 3  or a cumulative
ELCR greater than 1  x 1CT4.  Primary COCs have  a constituent-specific noncancer hazard
greater than or equal to 0.1 or a cancer risk greater than 1 x 10"6.
        t
Preliminary  Human  Health  secondary COCs  are chemicals   in a  total exposure  pathway
(media/receptor/route) with a cumulative noncancer hazard between  1  and 3 or a cumulative
Excess Lifetime Cancer Risk (ELCR) between 1 x 10"6 and 1 x 10"*.  Secondary COCs have a
constituent-specific noncancer hazard greater than or equal to 0.1 or a cancer risk greater than or
equal to 1 x 10"6.

Carcinogenic risks are  estimated  as the incremental probability  of  an individual developing
cancer  over  a  lifetime  as a  result  of  pathway-specific  exposure  to  cancer-causing
contaminants.  The risk to an individual resulting from exposure to  non-radioactive chemical
carcinogens is expressed as the increased probability of cancer occurring over the course of a-
70 year lifetime.  Cancer risks are related to the EPA target risk range of one in ten thousand
(1 x 10"*) to one in one million (1 x lO'*) for incremental cancer risk at National Priorities List
sites. Risk levels greater than 1  x 10"* require a risk management decision  where specific
actions  to reduce risk may be considered while cancer risk  levels below  1  x  10"*  are
considered to be insignificant.

Non-carcinogenic effects are also evaluated to  identify a level at  which there may be concern
for potential non-carcinogenic health effects. The hazard quotient, which is the ratio of the
exposure dose to the  reference dose (RfD),  is calculated for  each contaminant.   Hazard
quotients are summed for each exposure pathway to determine the specific hazard index (HI)
for each exposure scenario.  If the HI exceeds unity (1.0), the  potential exists that adverse
health effects might occur.

The following sections  discuss the excess lifetime cancer risk (ELCR) and combined HI values
that were determined  in the BRA for current workers,  future  industrial workers,  and the
future residential child/adult.  Figure  7 shows these values graphically.  Tables 5 through 8

-------
                                                            ICWT NISTM. MN-WOUn
                                                            ONOT MSIM. «TN KnCR
N-AREA  (CENTRAL SHOPS) CAB LAND USE
3
3
ps


1

c
e
3
r
65
a
G
5S
09
^*
2

3
o
3
I
C/3
3-
O
•O


Record of
Operable 1
Savannah 1
Co"
ill
X a
f ?
> °
I I

i ?
o
A
^
|
3
X
I
H
3
5"
I
|
o
i



79
C-RP-97-171
Revision 1
Page 25 of 4 2

-------
Predominant
Source Release
Area Mechanism
On-Unit Worker


FDTF 	 +

Contact
Industrial Worker


FDTF — *•
1

Contact
Inniuuion/Perrolition

*


Eicioiion/Periurbtiion
Resident


FDTF 	 »•

Infil

Direct
Contact

Biotic
Uptake
l/tuon/Percolition




lion/Penufbilion
Exposure Pathway
Ingestion
Dermal Contacl
Inhalation (Dust)


Contaminated
Medium

Surface
Soil

Ingestion
Dermal Contact
Inhalation (Dust)

Ingestion
Dermal Contact
Inhalation (Dust)




Surface
Soil

Subsurface
Soil

Carcinogenic Risk
IE-06 IE-05 IE-04


None
None ?
Record of Decision for the Fire Department Hose Training Faci
Operable Unit (U)
Savannah River Site, April 1998
V?
«
o
&
U
£}
As • Arsenic


Be • Beryllium
BAP • Benzo(a/pyrene


Fe • Iron
                                               V - Vanadium
                                                                                                                                                   13




                                                                                                                                                   1



                                                                                                                                                   69
                                                                                                                                                  <<

                                                                                                                                                   VI



                                                                                                                                                   M



                                                                                                                                                   0.
                                                                                                                               Si
  I
  n
50»
P
e
                                                                                                                                A. =

-------
Medium
Soil
Leafy Vegetables
Tuberous Vegetables
Fruits

Exposure
Route
Ingestion
Dermal/ External
Inhalation
Ingestion
Ingestion
Ingestion

Combined Hazard Index:
Combined Cancer Risk:
Current
Noncancer
On-Unit
Worker
3E-05
4E-05
4E-06
NA
NA
NA

7E-05

HI Cancer Risk
On-Unlt
Worker
9E-10
3E-09
3E-14
NA
NA
NA

H [

| 4E-09 |

Future
Noncancer HI
Resident
3E-02
3E-03
8E-04
1E-01
2E-01
2E-01

5E-01

Industrial
Worker
1E-03
1E-03
2E-04
NA
NA
NA

| 3E-03 |

[

Cancer
Risk
Industrial
Resident Worker
2E-06
1E-06
2E-11
3E-12
IE-OS
6E-13

IE-OS |

2E-07
7E-07
7E-12
NA
NA
NA
\
9E-07

NA - pathway not evaluated
Note: Risks are not attributable to unit related COCs.
                                                                                                               en
                                                                                                              w
                                                                                                              5
                                                                                                              85*
                                                                                                              n
                                                                                                              6>
                                                                                                              n

                                                                                                              I
                                                                                                              o'
                                                                                                              3
                                                                                                              05
                                                                                                              e
                                                                                                              6>
                                                                                                              •3

                                                                                                              3
05
e
69
O
O
                                                                                                              O
                                                                                                              o
        I
        A
        H

        3
        ?
        £
        •7
        O
                                                                                                                      50
    ^i

-------
                                                                                                              69
                                                                                                              gr
                                                                                                              55"
  •5 a
  3 2
  li
 •s;a.
                                                                                                                  f  =•

Medium


Soil


Leafy Vegetables
Tuberous Vegetables
Fruits


Exposure
Route

Ingestion
Dermal/External
Inhalation
Ingestion
Ingestion
Ingestion

Combined Hazard Index:
Combined Cancer Risk:
Current
Noncancer HI
On-Unit
Worker
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA

OE+00 |
[
Cancer Risk
On-Unit
Worker
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA


OE+00

Future
Noncancer HI

Resident
2E+00
2E-01
8E-04
3E-01
4E-01
6E-01

| 4E+00
1
Industrial
Worker
9E-02
9E-02
2E-04
NA
NA
NA

| 2E-01 |
I
Cancer Risk

Resident
2E-05
5E-06
7E-08
IE-OS
2E-05
2E-05


8E-05 |

Industrial
Worker
2E-06
2E-06
3E-08
NA
NA
NA


4E-06

NA - pathway not evaluated

OE+00 - pathway evaluated but no risks could be calculated due to lack of EPA-approved toxlcity values

Note: Risks are not attributable to unit related COCs.
I




















PC1
2
n
55'
n

69
3
rt
J?
a.
5'
a
en
e
3
69
3
3
S
H
C/l
c
cr
' I
i *
N" t]
?
|
a
f
j
I
n
s
X


i







                                                                                                              ce

                                                                                                              C/3
                                                                                                             O

                                                                                                             o
_  »
?  


-------
Medium
Soil
Leafy Vegetables
Tuberous Vegetables
Fruits

Exposure
Route
Ingestion
Dermal/ External
Inhalation
Ingestion
Ingestion
Ingestion

Combined Hazard Index:
Combined Cancer Risk:
Current
Noncancer
On-Unlt
Worker
3E-05
4E-05
4E-06
NA
NA
NA

7E-05

HI Cancer Risk
On-Unit
Worker
9E-10
3E-09
3E-14
NA
NA
NA

U [

| 4E-09 |

Future
Noncancer HI
Resident
1E+00
1E-01
7E-04
3E-01
3E-01
4E-01

2E+00

Industrial
Worker
5E-02
5E-02
1E-04
NA
NA
NA

| 1E-01 |

[

Cancer Risk
Resident
2E-05
4E-06
IE-OS
IE-OS
IE-OS
3E-05

7E-05 |

Industrial
Worker
2E-06
2E-06
5E-09
NA
NA
NA

4E-06

NA - pathway not evaluated
Note: Risks are not attributable to unit related COCs.
cr
H
3 g
Si
~> 73
I *
~ n
ET
65
i
&
3.
B
5'
3
CM
B
3
65

S
K
CO
69
0
TO
•1
O
C
3
| £
e
3»
to
r>
Record of
Operable
Savannah
f||
I 1
00 o
i
§
g

s
•4
3
5"
5'
IT
£
«?'
I
i
t,pi
2











M
S *

                                                                                                            C/3
                                                                                                            O

-------
                                                                                                           tf
                                                                                                           or
                                                                                                           ft
                                                                                                           oo
> O SO

 32
Medium
Soil
Leafy Vegetables
Tuberous Vegetables
Fruits

Exposure
Route
Ingestion
Dermal /External
Inhalation
Ingestion
Ingestion
Ingestion

Combined Hazard Index:
Combined Cancer Risk:
Current
Noncancer HI
On-Unit
Worker
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA

OE+00 |

[

Cancer Risk
On-Unit
Worker
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA

OE+00

Future
Noncancer HI
Resident
1E+00
1E-01
7E-04
2E-01
3E-01
4E-01

| 2E+00

Industrial
Worker
5E-02
5E-02
1E-04
NA
NA
NA

| 1E01 |

[

Cancer Risk
Resident
1E-05
3E-06
IE-OS
IE-OS
8E-06
2E-05

5E-05 |

Industrial
Worker
1E-06
2E-06
4E-09
NA
NA
NA

3E-06

NA • pathway not evaluated

OE+00 - pathway evaluated but no risks could be calculated due to lack of EPA-approved toxJcity values

Note: Risks are not attributable to unit related COCs.
CD

o
g.
^
1
— '


















^






M
21
B
5
K'
O
6>
3
o
n
3.
|
o'
3
CD
C
1
s
S
H
00
63
r>
jr
TO
3
c
3
a
CD
c
cr
c
3>
> *
I »
5 gf
08 o
i
9
S
1%
3
1
?

£
o
A
Crf
C)












vi
73
» 0
* ? ?
OK; S

-------
Record of Decision for the Fire Department Hose Training Facility (904-113G)
Operable Unit (U)
Savannah River SItt-April 1998
WSRC-RP-97-171
     Revision 1
   Page 31 of 42
Table 9.     Health-Based COCs for Soil and Produce Fire Department Hose Training
             Facility
Media
Soil
Current On-Unit Worker
Hypothetical Industrial Worker
Hypothetical On-Unit Resident
Produce
Hypothetical Resident
0 -1 ft Soil Interval
ELCR
__

Benzo(a)pyrene (ELCR = 3 x 10 •*)

Benzo(a)pyrene (ELCR = 1 x 10 "5)
0-4 ft Soil Interval
Risk/Hazard
..
Arsenic (ELCR = 2 x 10 -6)
Beryllium (ELCR = 1 x 10 6)
Arsenic (HQ = 0.3)
Arsenic (ELCR =1x10 5)
Beryllium (ELCR = 3 x 10'6)
Iron (HQ = 2)
Vanadium (HQ = 0.3)
Benzo(a)pyrene (ELCR = 2x10*)

Arsenic (ELCR = 4 x 10"6)
Benzo(a)pyrene (ELCR = 1 x 10 s)
Note: ELCR = excess lifetime cancer risk, HQ = Hazard Quotient

ECOLOGICAL RISK ASSESSMENT
                                                                                    •i
The ecological BRA for the FDHTF evaluated the likelihood of harmful effects to ecological
receptors from exposure to contaminants in soil.  The receptors in the FDHTF food web that
were evaluated include terrestrial plants,  earthworms, meadow voles, short-tailed shrews,
American robins, and red-tailed hawks.  These receptors serve as  assessment endpoints for
the risk to plant and animal populations and ecosystems at FDHTF.

The evaluation of ecological risk was conducted according to relevant EPA headquarters, US
EPA Region IV, SCDHEC, and Westinghouse Savannah River Company  guidance.   The
assessment  methods follow the EPA Framework  for Ecological  Risk Assessments (EPA,
1992b) and draft Ecological Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund (EPA, 1994b).

Ecological  Constituents  of Potential  Concern  (COPCs)  were  identified  from  among
constituents detected at FDHTF, and incomplete exposure pathways were eliminated.   The
risk from COPCs in FDHTF surface soil was evaluated only for those pathways resulting in
ingestion of soil or those food items exposed directly or indirectly to soil.  COPCs are those

-------
Record of Decision for the Fire Department Hose Training Facility (904-113G)                       WSRC-RP-97-171
Operable Unit (U)                                                                     Revision 1
Savannah River Sitc^April 1998	Page 32 of 42
constituents whose maximum measured concentrations exceeded a toxicity screening value  for
ecological receptors  and 2X the background mean concentration.              ~~

Based  on field  reconnaissance,  the  principal ecological communities  at  FDHTF  were
characterized  as maintained grassy fields  with  scattered mature trees.   Most  receptors.
exposure classes, and/or species.evaluated in the ecological risk assessment were observed at
the unit or potentially reside or forage there.  No threatened, endangered and sensitive species
are expected to be exposed to COPCs in surface soil at FDHTF.

Six assessment endpoints representing environmental  values to be protected in  accordance
with two policy goals were evaluated at the FDHTF.  The risks to the FDHTF populations
and ecosystems were evaluated by estimating the risk  to populations of the six indicator
receptors [terrestrial vegetation, earthworms, meadow vole (proxy for herbivorous mammals).
short-tailed shrew, American robin, and  red-tailed hawk] according to ecological relevance.
susceptibility, accessibility to prediction or measurement, and relevance to policy goals.

For the evaluation of risk to the FDHTF populations and ecosystems, decision rules are stated
in terms of HQs.  HQs compare estimates of exposure based on  site measurements (e.g., RMET
concentrations of COPCs in the source media  [surface and subsurface soil]) to measures of
effect (e.g.,  test  concentrations  associated with  levels of  adverse effect  on  ecological
receptors).

Measured concentrations of ecological COPCs in surface soil are used to estimate  the RME
concentrations  and doses for ecological receptors.   Published toxicity-benchmark data arc
used to derive COPC concentrations associated with  levels of adverse effect on ecological
receptors at the FDHTF.

HQs for  current  and future exposure of  ecological receptors to  COPCs in surface  and
subsurface soil were calculated and used to estimate  risk.  No HQs exceeded 1.0 in surface
soil (0 - 0.3 m [0 - 1.0 ft]); therefore, there are no ecological risks for current conditions. The
five metals (aluminum, cadmium, chromium, selenium, and vanadium) exceeding an HQ of  1.0
are the COPCs associated with future conditions at the FDHTF.

-------
Record of Decision for the Fire Department Hose Training Facility (904-113G)                        WSRC-RP-97-171
Operable Unit (U)                                                                    Revision 1
Savannah River Site. April 1998    	Page 33 of 42
The weight-of-evidence  analysis  and evaluation of uncertainty for ecological COPCs with
HQs exceeding  1.0 resulted  in rejection of all five metals as sources of significant risk to
ecological receptors at the exposure unit.

UNCERTAINTY

The risk and hazard to  the current worker, future on-unit industrial worker, and the future on-
unit resident are summarized below. Preliminary COCs identified during the risk assessment
       i
are evaluated through an uncertainty analysis to determine  final  COCs.   Remedial Goal
Options (RGOs) are developed for the list of final COCs which become the basis of and the
focus for remediation.

Under the current land use, no primary or secondary preliminary COCs were identified for the
surface  soil. Under future  industrial land use,  arsenic,  beryllium,  iron,  vanadium,  and
benzo(a)pyrene  were  identified  as  secondary  preliminary  COCs  for  subsurface  soils.
Following the uncertainty analysis, no constituents were retained as final COCs and no  RGOs
were developed. Key uncertainties for each preliminary COC are summarized below.
                                                                                       •
Current Worker

The current worker is not at  risk  while working at this unit because the ELCR risk is  below
1 x 10*6 and the HI is below 1.

Future Industrial Worker

Arsenic and beryllium were identified as secondary COCs for the future industrial worker for
the 0 to  4-foot  soil depth  interval.  Although arsenic  and beryllium were identified as
preliminary  COCs following  the risk assessment, there is uncertainty that the concentration
terms used  to calculate unit  risk  are more representative of background risk. Arsenic  was
detected  9 out of 10 times in unit subsurface  soils with a concentration range of 1.2  to 7.3
mg/kg.  Comparatively, arsenic was detected  in background subsurface  10 out of 10 times
with concentrations ranging from 0.82 to 6.9  mg/kg.  The exposure point concentration for
arsenic  in  unit  subsurface  soils  is  6.0  mg/kg, while  the  background  exposure  point
concentration is 5.32 mg/kg.

-------
Record of Decision for the Fire Department Hose Training Facility (904-113G)                        WSRC-RF-97-171
Operable Unit (U)                                                                     Revision 1
Savannah River Site^April 1998	Page 34 of 42
Beryllium in subsurface soils was detected 8 out of 10 times at the unit  with concentrations
ranging from 0.06 to 0.20 mg/kg, while beryllium was detected 10 out of 10" times  in the
background  with a concentration  range of  0.05 to 0.20  mg/kg.   The exposure  point
concentration for beryllium in  unit subsurface soils  is 0.15 mg/kg,  while the background
exposure point concentration is 0.13 mg/kg.

The unit data and background data demonstrate that there is no difference between unit and
background concentrations of arsenic and beryllium.  The  similar concentration terms further
demonstrate that  the  risk  for  both the unit  and background  would not be significantly
different.  Therefore, neither arsenic nor beryllium were retained as a final COCs.

Future Residential Child/Adult

The residential  scenario was evaluated separately for the 0 to 0.3 m (0 to 1 ft) and the 0  to 1.2
m (0 to 4 ft) soil intervals.  Benzo(a)pyrene was identified as a secondary preliminary COC for
both soil intervals.  For subsurface soils (0 to 4 ft),  arsenic, beryllium,  iron,  and vanadium
were  identified as  secondary  preliminary COCs. The  uncertainty  associated with  each
preliminary COC is discussed in further detail below.

Arsenic and Beryllium

As  discussed for the future industrial worker, the unit  data and background data demonstrate
that there is no  difference between unit  and  background  concentrations of arsenic  and
beryllium. The  similar concentration terms further demonstrate that  the risk for both the unit
and background for the future resident would not be significantly different. Therefore, neither
arsenic nor beryllium were retained as final COCs.

Iron

Iron is a naturally occurring element that is abundantly distributed in soils.  Iron was detected
in  subsurface  soils  in  both  the  unit  and  background samples 10  out  of  10  times.
Concentrations of iron in unit subsurface soils ranged  from 1480 mg/kg to 44,000 mg/kg and
 1700 mg/kg to 22,700 mg/kg  in background subsurface soils (Tables  10 and  11).  The
maximum  detected value for both the unit and background subsurface  soils was used for the

-------
Record of Decision for the Fire Department Hose Training Facility (904-U3G)                        WSRC-RP-97-171
Operable Unit (U)                                                                     Revision 1
Savannah River Site, April 1998	Page 35 of 42
exposure  point concentration.  Similarly, exposure to iron in both the unit and background
subsurface soils would result in the designation of iron as a secondary COC.  Tfie designation
of iron as a secondary COC is base£
-------
Analyte (Units)

Proportion
Detected

Total Melals and Cyanide (mg/kg)
Aluminum
Aniimony
Arsenic
3arium
3eryllium
Cadmium
Calcium
Chromium
Coball
Copper
Cyanide
ron
>ead
Magnesium
Manganese
Mercury
Nickel
'otassium
Sodium
Vanadium
Zinc
51 5
3/ 5
51 5
51 5
51 5
51 5
51 5
51 5
4/ 5
51 5
3/ 5
51 5
51 5
51 5
51 5
41 5
51 5
51 5
3/ 5
51 5
51 5
Minimum
Detection
Limit


11
3.04
12
1.19
0.325
0.419
14
0.838
0.866
0.734
0.83
23.7
6.39
9.42
0.217
0.146
1.84
72.6
140
0.758
17.4
Maximum
Detection
Limit


21.9
4.12
13.1
1.29
0.461
0.47
19.8
1.06
1.04
1.18
0.9
25.8
6.94
10.2
0.235
0.158
2.07
78.8
152
0.823
18.9
Minimum
Detect


1410
0.442
0.821
5.1
0.0529
0.0737
63.6
2.7
0.244
1
0.11
1700
3.6
23.2
7.5
0.02
0.708
32.3
12.8
4.3
1.5
Average
Result


6300
l.ll
3.26
12.9
0.103
0.27
155
14.2
0.44
11.2
0.268
11200
7.68
78.7
21.7
0.0502
1.94
71
50.3
30.4
6.28
Maximum
Detect


9900
0.798
6.9
26.6
0.204
0.444
219
27
0.749
30.7
0.223
22700
14.6
144
47.9
0.094
2.9
118
79
59.3
13.4
Dist.
Type


N
D
L
L
L
N
N
L
D
L
D
N
L
N
L
D
N
L
D
L
L
95%
UCL


9520
1.71
22.8
35.3
0.252
0.398
215
158
0.672
2090
0.414
19400
19
121
75.5
0.0817
2.8
150
82.7
938
44.8
Exposure
Concentration


9520
0.798
6.9
26.6
0.204
0.398
215
27
0.672
30.7
0.223
19400
14.6
121
47.9
0.0817
2.8
118 \
79
59.3
13.4
• Average result includes all results with nondetects set to one half the sample quantification limit except for radionuclides which were included at the full
  reported value
Population DiMribution Codes:
D   Fewer than 5 or 50% detects Treated as normal
L    Log-normal distribution
N    Normal distribution
7.    Population includes Kro or negative results, treated as normal
X    Significantly different from normal and Ing -normal  Use arithmetic mr.in and i-disinbution fur *>$% |JCI.
'•'/A  .Statistics nni calculated became less than ? v.imrlrs






the FDHTF
























i




s3
o;
75"
©


Summary Sta
r*-
vi
i1
?
Cfl
£

^^
Cd
to
0
TO
g
9
Q.
n
O
3
0
n
3
3
5'
3
i
0

o

g>oso
1* 2

g. ? o"
55?
** ^ S'

• s*
ir (he Fire Departmei
April 1998
a
S
§
H
5°
1'
•»)
B
ft
£
-M>
1

O












M
99
ID ^
' ?5
*S .2
3 A " ^1
M *- N-

-------
Analyte (Units)

Proportion
Detected

Total Metals and Cyanide (mg/kg)
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Calcium
Chromium
Cobali
Copper
Cyanide
ron
Irad
Magnesium
Manganese
Mercury
Nickel
Potassium
Selenium
Sodium
Vanadium
Zinc
IO/ 10
SI 10
IO/ IO
to/ to
IO/ IO
91 IO
to/ 10
IO/ 10
91 10
IO/ 10
51 10
IO/ 10
IO/ 10
IO/ 10
IO/ 10
9/ 10
IO/ 10
IO/ 10
11 10
7/ 10
IO/ 10
91 10
Minimum
Detection
Limit


II
2.82
II. 1
I.I
0.299
0.39
13
0.779
0.797
0.682
0.8
21.8
S.88
8.67
0.199
0.14
1.69
66.7
10.4
129
0.697
16
Maximum
Detection
Limit


21.9
4.12
13.1
1.29
0.461
0.47
19.8
1.06
1.04
1.18
0.9
25.8
6.94
10.2
0.235
0.158
2.07
78.8
12.2
152
0.823
18.9
Minimum
Detect


1410
0.442
0.821
5.1
0.0529
0.0737
50.4
2.7
0.221
1
0.11
1700
2.8
23.2
2.6
0.02
0.708
32.3
0.489
12.8
4.3
1.4
Average
Result


5890
1.15
2.87
13.3
0.0972
0.284
152
12.5
0.456
6.95
0.304
10500
6.04
79.4
19.7
0.0448
1.66
69.1
5.23
41.9
27.2
4.87
Maximum
Detect


9900
0.798
6.9
26.6
0.204
0.662
219
27
0.756
30.7
0.289
22700
14.6
144
47.9
0.094
2.9
118
0.489
79
59.3
13.4
Dist.
Type


N
N
L
L
L
L
N
L
N
L
X
L
L
N
L
L
L
L
D
X
L
L
95 %
UCL
-

7630
1.52
5.32
20.4
0.133
0.605
185
25.7
0.576
24.2
0.383
25100
8.51
101
49.7
0.0681
2.37
99.3
6.21
59.3
67.1
10.2
Exposure
Concentration


7630
0.798
5.32
20.4
0.133
0.605
185
25.7
0.576
24.2
0.289
22700
8.51
101
47.9
0.0681
2.37
99.3
0.489
59.3
59.3
10.2
* Average result includes all results with nondetects set to one half the sample quantification limit except for radionuclides which were included at the full

  reported value.




Population Distribution Codes-.


0  Fcwrr than S or 50% detects. Treated as normal


I.   lyig norm.il distribution


N  Nomi.il  diMnbuiion                                                                         •


7   Population includes zrro 01 negalive refills, ire.urd as normal


X  Significantly different from normal and log nomul Use arithmetic me.in and i-disinbulion for 95% UCL
                                                                                                                                                                              H
                                                                                                                                                                              63
                                                                                                                                                                              er

                                                                                                                                                                              S"
                                                                                                                                                                         a   c/31
                                                                                                                                                                         «    5
HTF
                                                                                                                                                                             8

                                                                                                                                                                             5s
                                                                                                                                                                             "i
                                                                                                                                                                             en
 03
 65
 O
 ?r

-------
Record of Decision for the Fire Department Hose Training Facility (904-113G)                        WSRC-RP-97-17I
Operable Unit (U)                                                                    Revision 1
Savannah River SiterAprU 1998	__	Page 38 of 42
Vanadium

Vanadium is a naturally occurring metal which is abundant in soils at  SRS.  Vanadium was
detected in subsurface  soils  in both the unit  and  background samples 10 out of 10 times.
Concentrations of vanadium ranged from 3.6 mg/kg to 84.6 mg/kg in unit soils and 4.3 mg/kg
to 59.3  mg/kg in background soils (Tables  10 and 11). The exposure point concentration for
vanadium in subsurface soils for the unit  and background is 84.6 mg/kg and 59.3 mg/kg,
respectively. Vanadium was only considered a secondary COC because it slightly exceeds  an
HQ of 0.1 in unit soils.  The  HQ for ingestion  of vanadium in unit soils is 0.16, while the HQ
for ingestion of vanadium in background soils is 0.11.  Based on the frequency of detection in
both the unit and background soils, and the similar concentration ranges and hazard quotients.
it is  highly unlikely that vanadium is unit related and should be of concern  at the  FDHTF.
Therefore, vanadium was not retained as a final COC.

Benzo(a)pyrene

Although benzo(a) pyrene was retained as a  secondary preliminary COC for both surface
(O-l1) and subsurface soils (0-41), it was only detected once in surface soils.  Because of the—
single detection of benzo(a)pyrene, heterogeneous distribution and limited  data should  be
considered. The FDHTF is a small area approximately  20 by 40 feet in size. According  to
site records, contaminated soils were removed from the facility in 1982 and 1984,  thereby
removing the primary source of contamination.  A total of five borings were drilled within the
boundaries of the unit which provided  a sufficient number of samples for  the small area  of
concern  to  characterize the  unit and adequately define the  risk to human  health and the
environment.  Benzo(a)pyrene was detected in 1  out  of 5  surface soil samples,  1 out of  10
subsurface soil samples, and 1 out of  25 all-depth samples.   Because the  exposure  point
concentration is the single observed value, the  risk of 3 x 10"6 for the unlikely residential land
use  is based  on  the maximum  detected  concentration value.   It is  highly unlikely thai
benzo(a)pyrene should  be of concern  for the  FDHTF because  potential hot spots were
addressed by representative sampling and because of the low (<5%) frequency of detection.
Therefore, benzo(a)pyrene was not retained as  a final COC.

-------
Record of Decision for the Fire Department Hose Training Facility (904-113G)                        WSRC-RP-97-171
Operable Unit (U)                                                                     Revision 1
Savannah River Site, April 1998	Page 39 of 42
Other Uncertainties

Food chain exposures and risk were projected in the BRA by means of uptake  (partitioning)
models.  Uncertainty is  inherent in each step of the food chain uptake models.  Such models
are based on studies of plant  and animal uptake  of constituents into the receptor of interest
and  are thus reliant upon a set  of conditions that  were present  in the study  environment.
Precipitation and other weather-related factors, the chemistry of the soil and water, and other
factors fthat existed in the uptake study may or may not relate well to the conditions present at
the waste unit.  The uncertainties resulting from the use of food chain uptake models are likely
to be considerable.   Because  of  the assumptions and uncertainties associated with the food
chain pathway, the  risk  from produce is only considered  when inclusion of the  produce risk
would determine  whether the  constituent is  a final COC following  the uncertainty analysis.
Because no final COCs were retained for the FDHTF, RGOs for risk from produce were not
considered.

Ecological Uncertainties
                                                                                        *
There are uncertainties  in the parameters used to estimate exposure for  the  ecological risk
evaluation, but reported values for receptors' ingestion rates, size and home range,  soil-to-
plant uptake factors, and soil-to-animal bioaccumulation factors are unlikely to be biased and
should not severely or consistently over- or underestimate  exposure.  Exposure may be
overestimated for some contaminants because the fraction available for absorption by  animals
may be overestimated. Extrapolation from studies involving laboratory doses to  exposures at
FDHTF is a major source of uncertainty in the estimate of risk to ecological receptors because
the availability of the contaminant under test conditions may be greater than it is to receptors
living in field conditions.

Conclusions

No human health primary or secondary preliminary COCs were identified under current  land
use assumptions.  Secondary preliminary COCs were identified for the hypothetical industrial
worker  and on-unit  resident. Due to the elimination of the preliminary human  health COCs
(arsenic, benzo(a)pyrene,  beryllium,  iron,  and vanadium) through  the uncertainty analysis

-------
Record of Decision for the Fire Department Hose Training Facility (904-113G)                      WSRC-RP-97-171
Operable Unit (U)                                                                  Revision 1
Savannah River Site. April 1998                                                        Page 40 of 42
process, no soil RGOs were developed for the FDHTF.  No ecological RGOs were developed
because there are no final ecological COCs .                                 -

Site-Specific Considerations

Site-specific considerations, based on the conclusions of the BRA and RFI/RI,  which suggest
no potential for significant risk include:

1) FDHTF originally contained soil that may have been contaminated with flammable liquids.
   Stained soils were removed in an earlier removal action.

2)  The levels of surface soil  contamination  recognized during characterization are generally
   very low. The contaminants present are  generally within the background levels of soil in
   the area.

3)  The groundwater monitoring program indicates that there has not been significant impact
   from the waste materials in the pits.

4)  The BRA did not determine any  COCs  after the uncertainty analysis and, therefore, no.
   RGOs were prepared.

Remedial Action Objectives

Remedial  action objectives specify unit-specific contaminants, media  of concern, potential
exposure pathways, and remediation goals.   Remediation goals  are developed  based  upon
ARARs or risk-based concentrations.  After the uncertainty analysis, the BRA determined that
there are no unit-specific contaminants.  Therefore, there are no remedial action objectives.
No Action will be protective of human health and the environment.

VII.  THE SELECTED REMEDY

According to the EPA guidance document Guidance on  Preparing  Superfund Decision
Documents  (EPA, 1989), if there is  no  current or potential threat to human health or the
environment and no  action is warranted, the CERCLA  121  requirements are  not  triggered.

-------
Record of Decision for UK Fire Department Hose Training Facility (904-113G)                       WSRC-RP-97-171
Operable Unit (U)                                                                  Revision 1
Savannah River Site. April 1998	__^	Page 41 of 42
This means  that there is no need  to evaluate other alternatives or the  no action alternative
against the nine criteria specified under CERCLA.                           —

Under the No Action alternative, no treatment will be performed, no institutional controls  or
engineering  controls will be implemented, and no cost is associated  with implementing the
alternative.  According to  CERCLA regulations,  Section 121, if no  action is  the preferred
alternative, then no applicable or relevant and appropriate requirements are associated  with
the alternative.

Based  on the FDHTF RCRA RFI/RI/BRA Report, the FDHTF poses no significant risk  to
human health and the environment.  Therefore, No Action has been selected as the remedial
alternative which satisfies the CERCLA criteria. The No  Action alternative is the final action
for the FDHTF operable unit. This solution is meant to be permanent and effective in both the
short and long term and is applicable to all media evaluated (soil, groundwater, etc.). The No
Action Decision is the least cost option with no capital, operating, or monitoring costs, and is
protective of human health and the environment.

This proposal is consistent with EPA guidance and is an effective use of risk management--
principles.   The  Statement  of Basis/Proposed   Plan provided  for  involvement with the
community through a document review process and a public comment period.

The  selected remedy is protective of human health and  the environment and complies  with
Federal and  State requirements that are legally applicable or relevant  and appropriate to the
remedial  action. There is no irreversible and irretrievable loss of resources at the FDHTF.

VIII.  EXPLANATION  OF SIGNIFICANT CHANGES

The  SB/PP  and draft permit modification provided  for involvement with the community
through a document review process and a public comment period.  There were no significant
changes made to  either the RCRA permit modification or the Record of Decision based on
comments received during the public comment period. Comments that were received during
the 45-day public comment period are addressed in Appendix A of this ROD and are available
with the final RCRA permit.

-------
Record of Decision for the Fire Department Hose Training Facility (904-113G)                      WSRC-RP-97-17I
Operable Unit (U) _                                                              Revision 1
Savannah River Site. April 1998	Page 42 of 42
IX.   RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY

No comments were received from the public during the public comment period.  Therefore, a
Responsiveness Summary is norincluded in Appendix A.

X.    REFERENCES

DOE (U. S. Department of Energy), 1994. Public Involvement, A Plan for Savannah River
    Site. Savannah River Operations Office, Aiken South Carolina.
                                       ;
DOE, 1996.  Savannah River Site Future Use Project Report. U. S. Department of Energy
    Savannah River Operations Office, Aiken, South Carolina, January, 1996.

EPA (U. S. Environmental Protection Agency), 1989.  Guidance on Preparing  Superfund
    Decision documents.   Office  of  Solid Waste  and Emergency Response  - OSWER
    Directive 9355.3-02, Washington, DC, July 1989.

FFA, 1993. Federal Facility Agreement for the Savannah River Site, Administrative Docket
    No. 89-05-FF, (Effective Date: August 16, 1993).

WSRC, 1997a.  RCRA  Facility Investigation/ Remedial Investigation Report With Baseline
    Risk Assessment for the Fire Department Hose Training  Facility (904-113G)  (11).
    WSRC-RP-96-863,  Revision 1, Westinghouse Savannah River Company, Aiken, South
    Carolina (April, 1997).

WSRC, 1997b.  Statement of Basis/Proposed Plan for the Fire Department Hose Training
    Facility (904-113G) Operable  Unit (U), WSRC-RP-97-170, Revision 1, Westinghouse
    Savannah River Company, Aiken, South Carolina (October, 1997).

-------
Analyte
(Unite)
Metals/Inoi
(mg/k
Aluminum
Antimony
Arsenic
Barium
Beryllium
Cadmium
Calcium
Chromium
Cobalt
Copper
Cyanide
Iron
Lead
Magnesium
Manganese
Mercury
Nickel
Potassium
Selenium
Sodium
Vanadium
Zinc
Freq. of
Detection
rganics
e)
15/15
9/15
12/15
15/15
11/15
14/15
15/15
15/15
!!/ 15
15/15
4/ 15
15/15
15/15
15/15
15/15
2/15
15/15
15/15
8/15
15/15
15/15
9/15
Minimum
Detected

2960
0.482
1.4
2.4
0.0695
0.169
44.1
4.9
0.163
3.4
0.104
10200
6.4
44.8
1.2
0.02
0.27
39.8
1.4
27.5
28.4
2.2
Average
Result

7170
1.31
5.06
7.67
0.12
0.455
188
22.9
0.365
6.59
0.387
33400
11.9
142
11.8
0.0717
1.17
98.8
4.32
65.5
80.3
6.15
Maximum
Detected

12600
1.9
11.1
26.9
0.201
0.938
1190
59.4
0.538
13
0.306
76200
24.6
574
32.8
0.03
2.9
198
5.5
86.8
166
5.2
Human
Health
Criteria
Source

RBC*0.1
RBC*0.1
RBC
RBC*0.1
RBC
RBC*0.1
RDA
RBC*0.1
RBC*0.1
RBC*0.1
RBC*0.1
RBC*0.1
RBC*0.1
RDA
RBC'0.1
RBC*0.1
RBC*0.1
RDA
RBC*0.1

RBC*0.1
RBC*0.1
Human
Health
Criteria

7800
3.1
0.43
550
0.15
3.9
1000000
39
470
310
160
2300
40
1000000
39
0.78
160
393273
39
NA
55
2300
>Human
Health
Criteria

YES

YES

YES


YES



YES







YES
YES

2X
Background

9400
1.6
7.04
11.5
0.151
1.28
177
31.8
0.464
8.3
0.362
36400
12.8
149
4.84
0.07
1.69
96.2
3.48
59.8
135
4.34
Maximum
Detect
>2X
Bkgd

YES
YES
YES
YES
YES

YES
YES
YES
YES

YES
YES
YES
YES

YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
YES
Unit
Specific
Contaminant

YES

YES

YES


YES

^
\
YES







YES
YES

k
     cr
     S"
 O  cp
 ^   §
 3^  J
 3   ^
 £  |
 3""'  Si
     ft

I  £
 f^  r^
 1   I
 x  a
 8   o
 rt   ft
 H  ft
 3   £
 §:  &
7Q   5
 21  ^
 ta   o
 S  CD
*<   J»
    I
     3
     v
               O
              S

-------
Analyte (Units)
Freq. of
Detection
Minimum
Detected
Average
Result
Maximum
Detected
Human
Health
Criteria
Source
Human
Health
Criteria
>Human
Health
Criteria
2X
Background
SVOCs (ng/kg)
Benzoic acid
Bis(2-cthylhexyl)
phthalale
Di-n-octyl
phthalale
VOCs (jig^cg)
Acetone
Dichloromethane
[methylene
chloride)
4/15
3/15
8/15

1/15
3/15
44.6
63.5
69

17.5
10.5
756
178
234

6.91
5.79
84.7
110
462

17.5
13.2
RBC*0.1
RBC
RBC*0.1

RBC*0.1
RBC
31000000
46000
160000

780000
85000






ND
ND
458

ND
ND
Maximum
Detect
>2X
Bkgd

YES
YES
YES

YES
YES
Unit
Specific
Contaminant







1 Mean includes all results with nondetects set to one half the sample quantitation limit except for radionuclides which were included at

the full reported value.

ND indicates an analyte that was not detected in the background samples for this depth class.

NA indicates an analyte that does not have a human health screening criteria.

                                                                                                                       o  c/i
                                                                                                                       5   C
                                                                                                                       fb   3

                                                                                                                       »S
                                                                                                                       O   -i
                                                                                                                       3  •<

                                                                                                                       ?  g
                                                                                                                       25  5!'

                                                                                                                       I  S1

                                                                                                                      •8   ?
                                                                                                                       69   n
I!
|  o
H  S
3  §
i!  ^
ore  5'
**1  C/3
n  2.

•^  B5
n  |
I  ar

f  ?
         SP O 50

          1"
         §1*
         l» o

         f la
         e/> £ 5'
         »   a


         II


         i!
            s
            S
            I
            7
                                                                                                                                   I
                                                                                                                                   u
                                                                                                                                   O
                                                                                                                                   50
                                                                                                                                   n
                                                                                                                               St!
                                                                                                                               * ° -j

-------
 Record of Decision for the Fire Department Hose Training Facility (904-113G)                       WSRC-RP-97-17I
 Operable Unit (U)                                                                  Revision 1
 Savannah River SiU, April 1998	Page 21 of 42
 VI.   SUMMARY OF OPERABLE UNIT RISKS

 As a component of the remedial investigation process, a baseline risk assessment was prepared
 for the FDHTF.  The baseline risk assessment consists of human health and ecological risk
 assessments.   Summary information  for the human health and ecological risk assessments
 follows.

 HUMAN HEALTH RISK ASSESSMENT
       i
 The  human health risk assessment characterizes both the potential risk  from exposure to
 carcinogenic substances and adverse health effects from noncarcinogens to human receptors
 exposed to unit-related constituents under  current and future  land use conditions (Figure 6).
 Figure 6 indicates the future land use for  N-Area (Central Shops)  as recommended by the
 Citizens Advisory Board which was based on current nuclear industrial areas with a buffer.
The risks listed in this section were derived from the BRA (WSRC, 1997a) which used the
data obtained from the RFI/RI characterization.

The BRA designates the Constituents of Potential Concern (COPCs) based on a conservative^
screen against background concentrations and  the relative potential of the chemicals to cause
toxic or carcinogenic effects. Constituents  which have concentrations in soil which produce a
threshold risk less than the risk-based concentration levels are screened from further analysis.
Threshold risk is  defined as constituent concentrations that  exceed either a cancer risk of
 1 x 10"6 or a hazard quotient (HQ) of 1. An HQ of 0.1 was actually used for screening within
the BRA to account for potential additive effects for noncarcinogenic constituents.   Three
land use assumptions were made to describe the human receptors that may be exposed to unit-
related constituents.  Potential receptors are  expected to differ for the current and future land use
scenarios.  The possible receptor under the current land use scenario includes  the known on-unit
worker. The possible receptors under the future land use scenario include  the on-unit industrial
worker and the on-unit resident (adult and child).
                                                     •
 Based on the results of the risk assessment, COPCs that contribute significantly to  a pathway
 having a significant human cancer risk or human noncarcinogenic hazard or are determined to
pose unacceptable ecological  risk are designated  as  preliminary constituents of concern
(COCs).  The preliminary COCs are further defined as either primary or  secondary COCs.

-------
Record of Decision for the Fire Department Hose Training Facility (904-11JG)                        WSRC-RP-97-171
Operable Unit (U)                                                                     Revision 1
Savannah River SiteTApril 1998	Page 22 of 42
Final COCs are developed through an uncertainty analysis to inform decision-makers about
the relative significance of the preliminary COCs, and to help focus on risk decisions.

Preliminary Human Health  primary COCs are constituents  in a total exposure pathway
(media/receptor/route)  with  a cumulative noncancer hazard greater than  3 or a cumulative
ELCR greater than  1  x 10"4.  Primary COCs have  a constituent-specific  noncancer hazard
greater than or equal to 0.1 or a cancer risk greater than 1  x 10"6.

Preliminary  Human  Health  secondary COCs  are chemicals  in a total  exposure  pathway
(media/receptor/route) with a cumulative noncancer hazard between 1  and 3 or a cumulative
Excess Lifetime Cancer  Risk (ELCR) between 1  x 10"6 and 1 x 10^. Secondary COCs have a
constituent-specific noncancer hazard greater than or equal to 0.1 or a cancer risk greater than or
equal to 1 x 10*.

Carcinogenic risks are  estimated as the  incremental probability of an individual developing
cancer  over  a  lifetime  as a  result of  pathway-specific  exposure  to  cancer-causing
contaminants.  The risk to an individual resulting from exposure to non-radioactive chemical
carcinogens is expressed as the increased  probability of cancer occurring over the course of a.
70 year lifetime.  Cancer risks are related  to the EPA target risk range of one in ten thousand
(1 x 10"1) to one in one  million (1 x 10*) for incremental cancer risk at National Priorities List
sites. Risk levels greater than 1 x 10"6  require a risk management decision  where specific
actions  to reduce risk may be considered while cancer risk  levels below  1  x  10"6 are
considered to be insignificant.

Non-carcinogenic effects are also evaluated to  identify a level at which there may be concern
for potential non-carcinogenic health effects.  The hazard quotient, which  is the ratio of the
exposure dose to the  reference dose (RfD),  is calculated  for  each contaminant.  Hazard
quotients are summed for each exposure pathway to determine the  specific  hazard index (HI)
for each exposure scenario.  If-the HI exceeds unity (1.0), the  potential exists that adverse
health effects might occur.

The following sections discuss the excess  lifetime cancer risk (ELCR) and combined HI values
that were determined  in the BRA for current workers,  future industrial  workers,  and the
future  residential child/adult. Figure  7 shows these  values graphically. Tables 5 through 8

-------
Record of Decision for the Tire Department Hose Training Facility (904-1I3G)                        WSRC-RP-97-17I
Operable Unit (U)                                                                      Revision 1
Savannah River Site. April 1998                                                           Page 23 of 42
show the Reasonable Maximum Exposure (RME) risk  characterization  summaries  for the
surface  soil (0-T),  subsurface soils (0-4*), background surface soil (0-D, and background
subsurface soil (0-4').
               >.<
Current Worker

The current worker was evaluated at the 0 to 0.3 m (0 to  1 ft) soil interval only.  The  total
excess lifetime cancer risk level for the current  worker  is  4 x  109 and the  hazard index is
7 x 10'5.' Therefore, the current worker is not at risk while working at this unit.

Future Industrial Worker

The future industrial worker was evaluated at the 0 to 0.3 m (0 to 1  ft) and 0 to 1.2 m (0 to 4
ft) soil intervals.  For the 0 to 0.3  m (0 to  1 ft)  soil interval, the total excess  lifetime cancer
risk is 9  x 10"7 and the hazard index is 3 x  10'3.  Therefore, the future industrial worker will
not be at risk while working at the unit based on the evaluation of the surface soils.  For the 0
to 1.2 m (0 to 4 ft) soil interval, the total excess lifetime cancer risk  is 4  x  10"6 and the hazard
index is 0.2.  The pathways which contribute the most  to this receptor are soil ingestion and
dermal contact, each showing a cancer risk of 2 x 10"6.   The secondary COCs for  these
pathways are arsenic (84% of the risk for the ingestion pathway) and beryllium (54 percent of
the risk for the dermal contact pathway).

Future Residential Child/Adult

The residential scenario was evaluated at the 0  to 0.3 m (0 to 1  ft) and the 0 to 1.2 m (0 to 4
ft) soil intervals.  At the 0 to 0.3 m (0 to 1 ft) soil interval, the total excess lifetime cancer risk
is 1 x 10'5 and the hazard index is 0.5.  The secondary COC is benzo(a)pyrene, from ingestion
of produce (risk of 1 x 10's).

For the 0 to  1.2 m (0 to 4 ft)  soil interval, the total excess lifetime cancer risk is 8 x 10s and
the hazard index is 4.   The pathways which significantly contribute  to this receptor are
ingestion (2 x 10'5), dermal exposure (5 x 10"6), and the  ingestion of produce (5 x 10'5).  In the
ingestion pathway,  the cancer secondary COCs are arsenic (which contributes 84% of the
risk)  and benzo(a)pyrene.   The  hazard index  for  the  ingestion  pathway  is 2.4 and (he

-------
Record of Decision for the Fire Department Hose Training Facility (904-113G)                         WSRC-RP-97-171
Operable Unit (U) _                                                                     Revision 1
Savannah River Site, April 1998                                                            Page 24 of 42
secondary COCs are iron (which contributes to 78% of the hazard); arsenic and  vanadium.
The combined risk for the ingestion of produce is 5  x 10"5, the secondary COGs are arsenic
and benzo(a)pyrene, of which arsenic contributes 98% of the risk. A summary of the human
                                        *•.
health risks for soil and produce for the various land use scenarios is given in Table 9.

-------