PB95-964511
EPA/ROD/R09-95/141
January 1996
EPA Superfund
Record of Decision:
Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
Site 300, (Building 834 O.U.) Tracy, CA
9/26/1995
-------
UCRL-AR-119791
Interim Record of Decision
for the Building 834 Operable Unit
Lawrence Livermore National
Laboratory Site 300
September 1995
Environmental Protection Department
Environmental Restoration Division
-------
Work performed under the auspices of the U. S. Department of Energy by Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
under Contract W-7405-Eng-48.
-------
UCRL-AR-119791 Interim ROD for Building 834 Operable Unit, Site 300 1995
Contents
1. Declaration 1-1
1.1. Site Name and Location 1-1
1.2. Statement of Basis and Purpose 1-1
1.3. Assessment of the Site 1-1
1.4. Description of the Selected Remedy 1-1
1.5. Statutory Determinations < 1-3
. 1.6. Signature and Support Agency Acceptance of the Remedy 1-4
2. Decision Summary 2-1
2.1. Site Name, Location, and Description 2-1
2.2. Site History and Enforcement Activities 2-1
2.3. Highlights of Community Participation 2-2
2.4. Scope and Role of the Building 834 Operable Unit .'....2-2
2.5. Site Characteristics . 2-2
2.5.1. Chemical Releases 2-3
2.5.2. VOCs in Ground Water 2-3
2.5.3. VOCs in Soil/Rock ; , 2-4
2.5.4. VOCs in Soil Vapor , 2-4
2.5.5. Diesel in Ground Water and Soil/Rock 2-4
2.5.6. T-BOS in Ground Water 2-4
2.6. Risk Assessment 2-5
2.6.1. Identification of Contaminated Environmental Media ^...2-5
2.6.2. Identification of Chemicals of Potential Concern 2-5
2.6.3. Estimates of Exposure-Point Concentrations 2-5
2.6.4. Human Exposure and Dose Assessments 2-6
2.6.5. Toxicity Assessment 2-7
2.6.6. Risk Characterization 2-7
2.6.7. Summary of Baseline Risks and Hazards Associated with
Contaminants 2-8
2.6.8. Remedial Goals 2-9
-------
UCRL-AR-119791 Interim ROD for Building 834 Operable Unit, Site 300 1995
2.7. Description of Remedial Action Alternatives 2-11
2.7.1. Alternative 1No Action 2-11
2.7.2. Alternative 2Exposure Control 2-11
2.7.3. Alternative 3Source Mass Removal using SVE 2-12
2.7.4. Alternative 4Source Mass Removal using SVE and
Dewatering 2-12
2.7.5. Alternative 5Source Mass Removal using SVE and Ground
Water Plume Control 2-12
2.7.6. Alternative 6Interim Source Mass Removal. 2-13
2.8. Summary of Comparative Analysis of Alternatives 2-13
2.8.1. Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment 2-14
2.8.2. Compliance with ARARs 2-14
2.8.3. Short-Term Effectiveness 2-14
2.8.4. Long-Term Effectiveness and Permanence ;: 2-15
2.8.5. Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility, or Volume 2-15
2.8.6. Implementability ; 2-16
2.8.7. Cost-Effectiveness 2-16
2.9. Selected Remedy ....2-17
2.9.1. Treatment System Design '. 2-17
2.9.2. Summary of Preliminary Cost Estimates ; 2-18
2.10. Statutory Determinations 2-18
2.10.1. Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment 2-19
2.10.2. Compliance with ARARs '. 2-19
2.10.3. Utilization of Permanent Solutions and Alternative Treatment
Technologies 2-20
2.10.4. Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility, or Volume as a Principal
Element : 2-20
2.10.5. Cost-Effectiveness '. 2-20
3. Responsiveness Summary 3-1
3.1. Organization of the Responsiveness Summary 3-1
3.2. Summary of Public Comments and Responses 3-1
3.2.1. Selected Remedial Action 3-1
3.2.2. Protection of the Environment 3-6
-------
UCRL-AR-119791
Interim ROD for Building 834 Operable Unit. Site 300
1995
3.2.3. Impact of Future Activities 3-7
3.2.4. Community Relations 3-7
3.2.5. General Comments 3-8
References....; R-l
List of Figures
Figure 1. Locations of LLNL Main Site and Site 300
Figure 2. Operable units and SWRI study areas at LLNL Site 300
Figure 3. Functions of the buildings at the Building 834 operable unit
Figure 4. Conceptual hydrogeologic model of the Building 834 operable unit
Figure 5. Distribution of TOE in perched ground water in the Qt-Tpsg/Tps-Tns2 hydrologic
units, December 1991
Figure 6. Maximum TCE concentration, 0 to 12 ft, in soil and rock samples in the Building
834 operable unit ,
Figure 7. Maximum TCE concentration in soil and rock samples in the Building 834
operable unit : _
Figure 8. Vertical distribution of TCE in soil vapor at the Building 834 operable unit
(ppmv/v)
Figure 9. Soil vapor treatment system
Figure 10. Air stripper with aqueous-phase and vapor-phase GAC
Figure 11. Building 834 remedial alternative cost summary chart ;....
List of Tables
Table 1. Contaminants of potential concern in ground water in the
Building 834operable unit T-l
Table 2. Contaminants of potential concern in surface soil (0-0.5 ft) in the
Building 834 operable unit T-2
Table 3. Contaminants of potential concern in subsurface soil (>0.5-12.0 ft)
at Building 834D T-2
Table 4. Compounds other than TCE reported in borehole soil and rock
samples from the Building 834 operable unit T-3
Table 5. Maximum concentrations of TCE encountered in soil vapor at the
Building 834 operable unit T-4
Table 6. Summary of the fate and transport models applied to estimate
human exposure-point concentrations in the Building 834 operable
unit T-5
in
-------
UCRL-AR-119791
Interim ROD for Building 834 Operable Unit, Site 300
1995
Table 7. Calculation of excess individual lifetime cancer risk attributable to
inhalation of VOCs that volatilize from subsurface soil (>0.5 to
12 ft) to air in the vicinity of Building 834D in the Building 834
operable unit (adult on-site exposure) 1-1
Table 8. Calculation of excess individual lifetime cancer risk attributable to
inhalation of VOCs that volatilize from soil into the indoor air of
Building 834D in the Building 834 operable unit (adult on-site
exposure) T-7
Table 9. Calculation of excess individual lifetime cancer risk attributable to
inhalation of particulates resuspended from contaminated surface
soil (0 to 0.5 ft) in the Building 834 operable unit (adult on-site
exposure) T-8
Table 10. Calculation of excess individual lifetime cancer risk attributable to
incidental ingestion and direct dermal contact .with contaminated
surface soil (0 to 0.5 ft) in the Building 834 operable unit (adult
on-site exposure) T-8
Table 11. Calculation of excess individual lifetime cancer risk attributable to
residential use of contaminated ground water from the
Building 834 operable unit (adult on-site exposure) T-9
Table 12. Calculation of noncancer hazard index attributable to inhalation of
VOCs that volatilize from subsurface soil.(>0.5 to 12 ft) in the
vicinity of Building 834D in the Building 834 operable unit (adult
on-site exposure) T-10
Table 13. Calculation of noncancer hazardindex attributable to inhalation of
VOCs that volatilize from soil into the indoor air of Building 834D
in the Building 834 operable unit (adult on-site exposure) T-10
Table 14. Calculation of noncancer hazard index attributable to inhalation of
particulates resuspended from contaminated surface soil (0 to
0.5 ft) in the Building 834 operable unit (adult on-site exposure) T-l 1
Table 15. Calculation of noncancer hazard index attributable to incidental
ingestion and direct dermal contact with surface soil (0 to 0.5 ft) in
the Building 834 operable unit (adult on-site exposure) T-l 1
Table 16. Calculation of noncancer hazard index attributable to residential use of
contaminated ground water from the Building 834 operable unit T-12
Table 17. Estimated incremental lifetime cancer risk and noncancer hazard
index associated with potential adult on-site exposure in the
Building 834 operable unit (pump station Building 834D:
inhalation of VOCs that volatilize from subsurface soil to indoor
air) :. T-13
Table 18. Estimated incremental lifetime cancer risk and noncancer hazard
index associated with potential adult on-site exposure in the
Building 834 operable unit (vicinity of pump station
Building 834D: inhalation of VOCs that volatilize from subsurface
soil to air) : T-13
IV
-------
UCRL-AR-119791
Interim ROD for Building 834 Operable Unit, Site 300
1995
Table 19. Estimated incremental lifetime cancer risk and noncancer hazard
index associated with potential adult on-site exposure in the
Building 834 operable unit (overall operable unit: inhalation of
particulates resuspended from surface soil) , T-14
Table 20. Estimated incremental lifetime cancer risk and noncancer hazard
index associated with potential adult on-site exposure in the
Building 834 operable unit (overall operable unit: ingestion and
dermal adsorption from surface soil) ; T-14
Table 21. Additive risk and hazard index for adults on site in the Building
83/1 operable unit (total outdoor exposure only) T-15
Table 22. Estimated incremental lifetime cancer risk and noncancer hazard
index associated with potential residential exposures to
contaminated ground water that originates in the Building 834
operable unit (well CDF-1) T-16
Table 23. Concentration of TCE in subsurface soil, Cs, associated with a
hazard index of 1, cancer risks of lO"4 and lO"6, and U.S. EPA
Region IX PRG T-16
Table 24. Detailed evaluation of remedial alternatives for the Building 834
operable unit T-17
Table 25. Comparative evaluation of remedial alternatives for the
Building 834 operable unit '. ; T-21
Table 26. Soil vapor and ground water monitoring'program for the Building
834 operable unit T-22
Table 27. Alternative 6: Capital costs for source mass removal at the core of
the Building 834 operable unit using soil vapor extraction
enhanced by dewatering '. ; T-25
Table 28. ARARs for the selected interim remedy at the Building 834
operable unit : T-35
Acronyms
-------
-y ;y/yy Interim ROD for the Building 834 Operable Unit, Site 300 1995
1. Declaration
1.1. Site Name and Location
The site described in this Interim Record of Decision (ROD) is known as the Building 834
operable unit (OU) located at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (LLNL) Site 300, Tracy,
California. This OU is designated as OU-2 in the Federal Facility Agreement (FFA) signed in
June 1992.
1.2. Statement of Basis and Purpose
This decision document presents the selected interim remedial action for the Building 834
OU at LLNL Site 300, Tracy, California. This remedial action was developed in accordance
with the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act-(CERCLA),
as amended by the Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act (SARA) and, to the extent
practicable, the National Contingency Plan (NCP). This decision is based on the Administrative
Record for this OU. The State of California Department of Toxic Substances Control (DTSC),
Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), and the U.S. Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA), Region DC, concur with the selected remedy.
The selected remedy set forth in this Interim ROD is intended only to address potential
human inhalation risks resulting from volatilization of subsurface volatile organic compounds
(VOCs). The following issues will be addressed in the Final (non-interim) ROD for the Building
834 operable unit:
1. Selection of supplemental innovative remedial technologies for remediation of subsurface
dense nonaqueous phase liquid (DNAPL) and treatment of extracted soil vapor and
ground water. These technologies have not yet been specifically identified, but will be
evaluated concurrently with this interim action.
2. Ground water remediation strategy, ground water Applicable or Relevant and
Appropriate Requirements (ARARs), and ground water cleanup goals.
3. Additional vadose zone remediation to protect ground water, if required.
4. Specific plans to monitor and protect the Tnbsj regional aquifer.
5. Potential cumulative effects of multiple contaminants.
1.3. Assessment of the Site
Based on the baseline risk assessment, actual or threatened releases of hazardous substances
at this OU, if not addressed by implementing the response actions selected in this Interim ROD,
may present an imminent and substantial endangerment to public health and welfare,.or the
environment.
1.4. Description of the Selected Remedy
In June 1992, an FFA for the LLNL Site 300 Experimental Test Facility was sigixd by the
U.S. EPA Region IX, DTSC, RWQCB, and the U.S. Department of Energy (DOE). The FFA (as
1-1
-------
UCRL-AR-119791 Interim ROD for the Building 834 Operable Unit, Site 300 1995
amended in 1995) defines seven OUs and designates the Building 834 OU as OU-2. The
Building 834 OU is located on a north-south-trending ridge in the southeastern portion of
Site 300. The OU was established to address soil and ground water contamination in the
subsurface immediately beneath and approximately 1,500 ft downgradient of the Building 834
Complex. Presently, the Site 300 FFA is being amended and the total number of OUs may be
reduced. The amendment process should be completed before December 1995, but is not
expected to affect the Building 834 OU.
Interim actions for the Building 834 OU primarily target trichloroethylene (TCE) in shallow
perched ground water and soil beneath the core of the Building 834 Complex; secondarily, they
address contamination caused by other VOCs, diesel fuel, and tetra 2-ethylbutylorthosilicate
(T-BOS). The primary potential risk associated with contamination at the Building 834 OU is
on-site worker inhalation exposure to TCE volatilizing from contaminated subsurface soil (0.5-
12.0 ft) in the vicinity of the release sites.
Current analytical data and ground water fate and transport modeling indicate that the
regional aquifer will not be affected by any contaminants at the OU. DOE/LLNL will continue
to monitor ground water in the perched water-bearing zone and regional aquifer.
The major components of the selected remedy include:
Installation of additional dedicated soil vapor monitoring points to monitor the progress
1 of remediation.
Sealing and abandonment of several existing ground water monitor wells.
Installation of replacement ground water monitor wells.
Modification of ventilation systems in selected buildings to increase air circulation and
reduce any potential inhalation risk from TCE vapors that may be migrating into
buildings from subsurface soil.
Institutional exposure controls such as fences, warning signs, and excavation and/or
construction restrictions, if required.
Surface water drainage controls, such as asphalt paving, to reduce recharge of
.precipitation to the perched water-bearing zone.
Light nonaqueous-phase liquid (LNAPL) extraction and treatrnent (T-BOS and diesel) to
reduce the mass of these contaminants. Extracted LNAPLs will be removed from ground
water using an oil-water separator, skimmer, or equivalent system.
Soil vapor extraction (SVE) and treatment. Extracted soil vapor will be treated using
granular activated carbon (GAG) or other technology. The interim soil vapor restoration
level (ISVRL) is 250 ppmv/v TCE, which corresponds to a TCE soil concentration of
2.2 mg/kg. Modeling indicates that this goal will be reached in approximately 5 years.-
Partial dewatering of the perched water-bearing zone in the vicinity of the release areas to
enhance the effectiveness of SVE by exposing a larger soil volume to vapor flow.
Extracted ground water will be treated by a low-profile type (or similar type) air stripper
with GAC emissions control. Treated ground water will be discharged through an air
misting system. Effluent concentrations of TCE and total VOCs will meet the
substantive requirements of the California RWQCB. Effluent will be treated below limits
of detection established for EPA Methods 601 and 602. Effluent concentrations for total
petroleum hydrocarbons (TPH) as gasoline, TPH as diesel, and T-BOS will also be set at
concentrations agreed to by the regulatory agencies and DOE/LLNL. Because this
Interim ROD addresses only soil vapor with respect to inhalation risk and NAPL
remediation, it does not include any cleanup goals for in situ ground water in the perched
1-2
-------
UCRL-AR-119791 Interim ROD for the Building 834 Operable Unit. Site 300 1995
water-bearing zone or cleanup goals for soil and soil vapor to protect ground water; these
goals will be addressed in the Final ROD.
Innovative technology development for enhanced removal of undissolved TCE DNAPL
in the vadose zone and in shallow perched ground water. The objective will be to
identify technologies that shorten cleanup time, improve cleanup efficiency, and reduce
cost. Criteria to evaluate the effectiveness of any innovative technologies utilized will be
developed with the regulatory agencies during the remedial design.
As presented in the Final Feasibility Study (FS)for the Building 834 OU (Landgraf et al.,
1994) the 1994 present-worth cost of the selected remedy is estimated to be approximately
$10.38 million. .This estimate assumes 2 years of LNAPL recovery, 5 years of SVE and
dewatering, and,30 years of soil vapor and ground water monitoring. These time and cost
estimates do not include the development or testing of any innovative technologies.
During the June 23, 1994, Site 300 Remedial Project Manager's Meeting, DOE/LLNL,
RWQCB, DTSC, and U.S. EPA agreed to pursue a remedial action alternative for the
Building 834 OU that included the testing and evaluation of innovative technologies combined
with SVE and dewatering. Because no proven technology is currently available to remediate
subsurface DNAPL, DOE/LLNL will test innovative technologies under this interim action and
may choose one or more to be implemented in the final remedy. Such technologies may include
alcohol flooding, surfactants, dual-gas partitioning tracers, bioremediation, and in situ radio
frequency heating.
During this interim action, DOE/LLNL may also test innovative treatment technologies to
reduce waste mass, waste volume, and overall cost. Such technologies may include electron
accelerator destruction, resin adsorption, and ozone treatment. Any testing and implementation
of such technologies must be approved by the regulatory agencies.
As remediation progresses, soil vapor samples will be collected from SVE wells and soil
vapor monitoring points. The remediation system will be shut down when no soil vapor sample
exceeds the ISVRL concentration. Monitoring will be conducted for four consecutive quarters
after ISVRLs are met. If soil vapor concentrations increase above an acceptable level, the SVE
system will be restarted. In addition to the soil vapor sampling, DOEyLLNL may also conduct
direct soil vapor flux and/or ambient air measurements during the interim action to verify that the
selected remedy is indeed protective of human health.
Prior to December 31, 1995, DOE/LLNL and the regulatory agencies will jointly determine
the scope and schedule of all required post Interim ROD documents and reports (up to the Final
ROD), as well as schedules for implementing the selected interim remedy.
1.5. Statutory Determinations
The interim action is protective of human health and the environment in the short term, and
provides adequate protection until a final remedy for this OU is selected and presented in the
Final (non-interim) ROD. The remedy complies with Federal and state applicable or relevant
and appropriate requirements for this limited-scope action, and is cost-effective. Although this
interim action is not intended to address fully the statutory mandate for permanence and
treatment to the maximum extent practicable, it does utilize treatment; thus, it contributes to that
statutory mandate. This action does not constitute the final remedy for the Building 834 OU.
The statutory preference for remedies that employ treatment that reduces toxicity, mobility, or
volume as a principal element, although partially addressed in this remedy, will be addressed by
the final response action. Subsequent actions are planned to address fully the threats posed by
conditions at this OU. Because this remedy will result in hazardous substances remaining on site
above health-based levels, a review will be conducted within 5 years after commencement of the
remedial action to ensure that the remedy continues to provide adequate protection of human
1-3
-------
UCRL-AR-11979J Interim ROD for the Building 834 Operable Unit. Site 300 1995
health and the environment. Because this is an Interim ROD, review of this site and of this
remedy will be ongoing as DOE/LLNL and the regulatory agencies develop the final remedy for (
the Building 834 OU.
*
1.6. Signature and Support Agency Acceptance of the Remedy
Julie Anderson Date
Director of Federal Facilities Cleanup Office
Hazardous Waste Management Division
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region DC
Barbara Cook U Date
Chief, Region II Site Mitigation Branch
State of California Department of Toxic Substances Control
William H. Crooks Date
Executive Officer
State of California Regional Water Quality Control Board
Central Valley Region
/ James M. Turner, Ph.D? Date
/^Manager
'(/ Oakland Operations Office
U.S. Department of Energy
1-4
-------
UCRL-AR-119791 Interim ROD for the Building 834 Operable Unit. Siie 300 7995
2. Decision Summary
2.1. Site Name, Location, and Description
Site 300, a DOE-owned experimental test facility operated by LLNL, is located in the
southeastern Altarnont Hills of the Diablo Range, about 17 mi east-southeast of Livermore and
8.5 mi southwest of Tracy, California (Fig. 1). The site is bordered by cattle grazing land, a
California Department of Fish and Game ecological preserve, an outdoor recreational facility,
and a privately owned high explosives (HE) testing facility. For the purpose of this Interim
ROD, it is understood that Site 300 will remain under the continued control of DOE for the
foreseeable future.
.The Building 834 operable unit (OU) is located on a north-south-trending ridge in the
southeastern part of Site 300, and was established to address soil and ground water
contamination in the subsurface below the facility (Figs. 2 and 3). However, to address potential
human inhalation risks, we discuss only soil remediation in this Interim ROD.
2.2. Site History and Enforcement Activities
Prior to the purchase of Site 300 land for development as a DOE HE test facility, the
Building 834 area was used for cattle ranching and livestock grazing. Since the late 1950s, the
Building 834 facilities have been used to expose test specimens to thermal shock, thermal
cycling, and long-term elevated or reduced temperatures.
TCE served as the primary heat transfer fluid for these operations until the entire system was
dismantled between September 1993 and May 1994. DOE/LLNL estimates that about
550 gallons of TCE, a suspected human carcinogen, leaked and spilled to the ground surface and
a nearby septic system leach field, primarily between 1962 and 1978, contaminating the soil and
shallow ground water in the area. Other chemical compounds commonly detected in the perched
ground water in the Building 834 area include tetrachloroethylene (PCE), 1,2-dichloroethylene
(DCE), 1,1,1-trichloroethane (TCA), T-BOS, and diesel fuel.
In 1982, DOE/LLNL discovered the contamination at the site and began an investigation
under the guidance of the RWQCB. All investigations of potential chemical contamination at
Site 300 were conducted under the oversight of the Central Valley RWQCB until August 1990,
when Site 300 was placed on the National Priorities List (NPL). Since then, all investigations
have been conducted in accordance with CERCLA under the guidance of three supervising
regulatory agencies: the U.S. EPA Region IX, the RWQCB, and the DTSC. The DOE entered
into an FFA with these agencies in June 1992.
In April 1994, LLNL released the Final Site-Wide Remedial Investigation (SWRI) report
(Webster-Scholten, 1994). In July 1994, the Final Building 834 Operable Unit Feasibility Study
(FS) (Landgraf et al., 1994) was published. The SWRI and the FS form the basis for selecting
technologies for the remediation of subsurface contamination at the Building 834 OU. The
Proposed Plan (PP) for the remediation of the Building 834 OU, which summarizes site
conditions and remedial alternatives, was released in December 1994. The public comment
period on the FS and PP was conducted between January 9 and February 9, 1995.
Since the discovery of contamination at Building 834, some of the VOCs in the subsurface
have been remediated by soil excavation, soil venting, and ground water extraction and
treatment. In addition, this facility has already been used as a test bed for several innovative
technology treatability projects, including an EPA Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation
2-1
-------
VCRL-AR-119791 Interim ROD for the Building 834 Operable Unit. Site 300 1995
(SITE) test of a PURUS pulsed ultraviolet soil vapor treatment system, an electrical soil
heating pilot test (joule heating), and a demonstration of an electron accelerator to treat soil vapor
(Matthews etal., 1992).
2.3. Highlights of Community Participation
The SWRI report and the FS for the Building 834 OU were made available to the public in
April 1994 and July 1994, respectively. The PP was released to the public in December 1994.
This Interim ROD presents the selected remedial action for the Building 834 OU. All documents
were prepared in compliance with CERCLA as amended by SARA. The decision for this site is
based on the Administrative Record, which is available at the Information Repository at the
LLNL Visitors Center and the Tracy Public Library.
A public review and comment period on the preferred remedial alternative began January 9,
1995, and ended February 9, 1995. Interested members of the public were invited to review all
documents and comment on the considered remedial alternatives by writing to the Site 300
Remedial Project Manager or by attending a public meeting on January 24, 1995, at the Tracy
Inn in Tracy, California. At this meeting, representatives from DOE, LLNL, U.S. EPA, and the
State of California discussed the proposed remediation plan and addressed public concerns and
questions. Questions and comments from the public are discussed in the Responsiveness
Summary of this Interim ROD.
2.4. Scope and Role of the Building 834 Operable Unit (OU)
The 1992 FFA (as amended in 1995) defines the following seven OUs at Site 300:
OU-1, General Services Area (GS A).
OU-2, Building 834.
OU-3, Pit 6.
OU-4, High Explosives Process Area Building 815.
'OU-5, Building 850/Pits 3 and 5.
OU-6, Building 832 Canyon.
OU-7, Site 300 Monitoring.
Investigations at the Building 834 OU address soil and ground water contaminated by VOCs,
diesel, and T-BOS from past chemical spills and overfilling of an underground diesel storage
tank. The principal potential threat to human health and the environment is exposure to VOC
vapors volatilizing from shallow soil into ambient air.
This Interim ROD addresses only the potential human health inhalation risk posed by VOC
contamination in the vadose zone at the Building 834 OU. The purpose of the selected remedy is
to protect human health and the environment by reducing VOC concentrations in soil vapor and
controlling contaminant migration.
2.5. Site Characteristics
Since environmental investigations began at the Building 834 Complex in 1982,
13 exploratory boreholes have been drilled and 48 ground water monitor wells have been
completed. Two water-bearing zones have been identified (Fig. 4):
Perched Water-Bearing Zone: The small, shallow perched water-bearing zone occurs
beneath the OU. Depending on topography, depth to water is approximately 10-70 ft
2-2
-------
UCRL-AR-119791 Interim ROD for the Building 834 Operable Unit. Site 300 1995
beneath the ground surface. As a result of past releases, this perched water is
contaminated with TCE and other VOCs, diesel, and T-BOS.
Regional Aquifer: The regional aquifer occurs in the lower Neroly Formation (Tnbsi).
This semi-confined aquifer is encountered at 325 ft below the ground surface.
The TCE plume in the perched water-bearing zone at the Building 834 OU is separated from
the regional aquifer by over 280 ft of unsaturated bedrock. Data indicate that the perched zone
contaminant plume has not affected the regional aquifer.
2.5.1. Chemical Releases
Historical information and analytical data suggest that VOCs and LNAPLs (diesel and
T-BOS) were released to the ground from surface spills, discharges to a septic tank, and leakage
from pipes, pumps, and valves between the early 1960s and mid-1980s. These releases include:
VOCs in the Building 834 OU near the core of the Building 834 Complex site and at the
facility septic system. The quantity of TCE released in these areas greatly exceeds that of
other VOCs. Based on employee interviews, we estimate that a total of about 550 gallons
of TCE was released.
TCE at the decommissioned septic system leach field.
Diesel fuel in ground water attributed to accidental overfilling of an underground tank
located near Building 834B.
T-BOS concurrently released with the TCE as a mixture. T-BOS is added to TCE-based
heat exchange fluids to preserve pump seals.
2.5.2. VOCs in Ground Water
TCE is the most prevalent VOC in ground water within the perched water-bearing zone and
perching horizon. Other VOCs that have been detected include PCE, cis-l,2-DCE, 1,1,1-TCA,
acetone, benzene, chloroform, 1,1-DCE, ethylbenzene, Freon 113, methylene chloride, toluene,
and xylenes (total isomers) (Table 1).
Figure 5 shows the distribution of TCE in perched ground -water beneath the
Building 834 OU. The width of the plume varies from about 200 ft at the southern end to about
500 ft in the area of the former septic system leach field. Perched ground water beneath the
Building 834 OU is characterized as limited in extent, shallow (10-70 ft below ground surface),
and relatively thin (2-5 ft saturated thickness). The eastern and western extent of TCE in ground
water is limited by the extent of saturation in the perched water-bearing zone. The plume
extends from the core area southward for about 1,500ft. We estimate the volume of
contaminated ground water to be 2,400,000 gallons.
Historically, the core area (Buildings 834B, C, and D) and former septic tank leach field area
have shown the highest concentrations of TCE in perched ground water. The maximum
historical TCE concentration in the plume is 800,000 p.g/L. This concentration suggests that
TCE as residual DNAPL is present in the subsurface. The high TCE concentrations in ground
water, soil, and soil vapor strongly suggest that TCE DNAPL may be present at and
downgradient of the release sites. Environmental investigations conducted since 1982 indicate
that the TCE ground water plume is of limited extent and relatively stable (i.e., not migrating
downgradient) due to natural evapotranspiration. The shallow perched ground water at the
Building 834 OU contains TCE and other chemicals of concern. Data indicate that shallow
ground water is perched upon low-permeability siltstones and claystones, which prevent vertical
migration to the semi-confined regional aquifer approximately 325 ft below the ground surface.
No contamination from the perched water-bearing zone has been detected in the regional aquifer.
2-3
-------
UCRL-AR-119791 Interim ROD for the Building 834 Operable Unit. Site 300 1995
2.5.3. VOCs in Soil/Rock
Maximum TCE concentrations in borehole soil and rock samples are shown in Figures 6
and 7. TCE in vadose zone soil is mainly confined to the core area of the complex, near
Buildings 834B, C, and D. The vertical and lateral variability of TCE concentrations in the core
area is attributed to multiple releases, release amounts, and release occurrences, as well as
lithologic heterogeneity and the amount of time that has passed since the releases occurred. The
maximum concentrations of TCE in soil and rock mostly occur within 5 ft above or below the
contact between the perched water-bearing zone and the perching horizon.
The maximum TCE concentration in soil (12,000 mg/kg) was detected in a soil sample
collected in 1982 from a depth of 3.2 ft in the vicinity of a former TCE overflow drain behind
Building 834C. At that time, TCE contaminated soil behind the building was excavated, aerated,
and replaced with clean soil. The next highest TCE concentration (970 mg/kg) was found in the
vicinity of Building 834D at a depth of 29.2 ft. Other than TCE, no other chemicals have been
detected in soil and rock samples south of well W-834-T4.
Low concentrations of other VOCs reported in subsurface soil (0.5-12.0 ft) include PCE,
Freon 11, benzene, ethylbenzene, toluene, and xylenes (total isomers) (Tables 2, 3, and 4). These
VOCs are detected in concentrations ranging from 0.0002 to 14 mg/kg, the highest being PCE in
a shallow (< 5 ft) soil sample collected from behind Building 834D. PCE is common in soil and
rock samples from wells adjacent to Building 834D and in the borehole for well W-834-J1; it has
not been detected in soil samples collected south of well W-834r.S5. Toluene, benzene,
ethylbenzene, and xylenes (total isomers) have primarily been detected in soil samples collected
in the vicinity of Building 834D and the well W-834-T2 wells to the south. Freon 11 detection in
soil samples is mostly limited to low concentrations in the vicinity of Building 834D and the
former septic tank leach field.
2.5.4. VOCs in Soil Vapor
Active vacuum induced soil vapor surveys (SVSs) were conducted between February and
March 1989 to identify the extent of VOC contamination and to monitor the progress of vacuum
extraction pilot studies (Fig. 8 and Table 5). The SVS sample results and the soil and rock
analytical data confirm that releases of TCE occurred adjacent to pump station Buildings 834B,
C, and D.
2.5.5. Diesel in Ground Water and Soil/Rock
Diesel fuel detected in ground water and soil at the core of the Building 834 Complex is
attributed to accidental overfilling of the underground diesel fuel tank. A TPH concentration of
100 mg/kg was detected at a depth of 20 ft in a soil sample from the borehole of well W-834-D8,
located near the diesel tank. Maximum fuel hydrocarbon concentrations in ground water range
from 25,000 to 73,000 M-g/L, depending on the analytical method used.
*
2.5.6. T-BOS in Ground Water
T-BOS,.a LNAPL, was mixed with TCE to lubricate and preserve the pump seals. This
LNAPL has been observed floating in samples collected from well W-834-D3 and in the tank
used to collect ground water during previous pilot testing of the remediation system near
Building 834D. T-BOS may also be trapped in vadose zone and saturated zone soil pores.
2-4
-------
UCRL-AR-119791 Interim ROD for the Building 834 Operable Unit. Site 300 1995
2.6. Risk Assessment
The baseline risk assessment evaluated potential present and future public health and
ecological risks associated with environmental contamination in the Building 834 OU, using the
assumption that no cleanup or remediation activities would take place at the site. Selection of a
specific remediation strategy is based in part on the extent to which it can reduce potential public
health and ecological risks.
The baseline risk assessment presented in the SWRI consisted of six components:
Identification of the contaminated environmental media.
Identification of chemicals of potential concern.
Estimation of potential exposure-point concentrations of contaminants.
. Human exposure and dose assessment.
Toxicity assessment.
Risk characterization.
2.6.1. Identification of Contaminated Environmental Media
Based on our assessment of the nature and extent of contamination obtained during site
characterization efforts, we identified contaminants of potential concern in four different
environmental media in the Building 834 OU: surface soil, subsurface soil", soil vapor, and
perched ground water.
2.6.2. Identification of Chemicals of Potential Concern
Table 6 presents the chemicals of potential concern identified in the Building 834 OU.
Details of the methodology used to identify these contaminants are described in the SWRI.
2.6.3. Estimates of Exposure-Point Concentrations
We developed conceptual models to identify the probable migration processes of the
chemicals of concern from release sites and source media in the Building 834. OU to selected
potential exposure points. The conceptual models provided the basis for selection of the
quantitative models used to generate estimates of contaminant release rates and potential
exposure-point concentrations. The exposure-point concentrations were used to estimate the
magnitude of potential exposure to contaminants in the baseline risk assessment. The release
areas, migration processes, and exposure points identified in the Building 834 OU are given in
Table 6. In addition, this table lists the mathematical models used to estimate contaminant
migration rates and the potential exposure-point concentrations for the chemicals of concern in
each environmental medium.
We applied a mathematical model to estimate the potential exposure-point concentrations of
contaminants: 1) in the atmosphere when VOCs volatilize from subsurface soil (0.5 to 12.0 ft) in
the vicinity of the Building 834D pump station, and 2) into indoor air of Building 834 when
VOCs volatilize from subsurface soil underneath the building and diffuse into the building. A
worst-case exposure scenario is assumed to occur in these locations because these are the regions
for which the highest contaminant concentrations detected in subsurface soil have been reported.
In addition, we estimated the concentrations of surface soil (< 0.5 ft) contaminants bound to
resuspended particles throughout the OU. The potential exposure-point concentrations for direct
dermal contact and incidental ingestion of contaminants in surface soil are the same as the 95%
upper confidence limits (UCLs) of the mean concentration of the chemicals.
2-5
-------
UCRL-AR-119791 Interim ROD for the Building 834 Operable Unit. Site 300 1995
The California Department of Forestry well, CDF-1, located approximately 300 ft southeast
of the Site 300 boundary, was selected as the receptor location for modeling of ground water
contaminants that originate in the Building 834 OU. An analytic model was used to estimate the
concentration of TCE in ground water predicted to reach the exposure point, well CDF-1.
2.6.4. Human Exposure and Dose Assessments
Exposure scenarios and pathway exposure factors (PEFs) used to define potential human
exposure and dose assessments are described below.
2.6.4.1. Exposure Scenarios
The exposure scenarios that we used to evaluate potential adverse health effects associated
with environmental contamination in the Building 834 OU were developed with respect to a
series of assumptions about present and future uses of the site and lands in the immediate
vicinity.
We developed two principal scenarios to evaluate potential human exposure to environmental
contaminants in the Building 834 OU. The first of these scenarios pertains to adults working in
the Building 834 OU. This scenario addresses potential health risks attributable to contaminants
in subsurface soil and surface soil, where an adult on site (AOS) is presumed to work in the
immediate vicinity of the contamination over their entire period of employment at the site
(25 years). Subsurface soil contaminants can volatilize into the atmosphere, where they may be
inhaled by individuals who work in the vicinity of the contamination. Surface soil contaminants
bound to resuspended soil paniculates may also be inhaled by individuals in the course of work-
related activities at the site. In addition, we evaluated AOS exposure as a consequence of dermal
absorption and incidental ingestion of contaminants present on surface soil.
Our second scenario pertains to residential exposures (RES), which are associated
exclusively with use of contaminated ground water from well CDF-1. The identification and
selection of exposure pathways related to residential use of contaminated ground water were
based on the assumption that well water will be used to supply all domestic water needs, such as
those associated with showering or bathing, cooking, dishwashing, and laundry. Accordingly,
we evaluated potential residential exposure to contaminants in ground water at CDF-1 due to
1) direct ingestion of water, 2) inhalation of VOCs that volatilize from water to indoor air,
3) dermal absorption of contaminants while showering or bathing, and 4) ingestion of
homegrown beef, milk, and fruits and vegetables raised using contaminated ground water. For
the purpose of the risk assessment, we assume residents could be exposed to contaminants in
ground water for 30 years.
2.6.4.2. Pathway Exposure Factors
To estimate the magnitude of potential human exposure to contaminants in the Building 834
OU, we developed PEFs, which convert the exposure-point concentrations .of contaminants into
estimates of average contaminant intake over time (the chronic daily intake or GDI). These PEFs
are based on a series of reported and/or assumed parameters regarding current alnd potential land
use patterns.in and around the Building 834 OU, residential occupancy patterns, and length of
employment. PEFs also account for a number of physiological and dietary factors such as the
daily ingestion rates of water and homegrown fruits, vegetables, beef, and milk; daily breathing
rate; and surface area of exposed skin.
The PEFs that we used to evaluate potential adult on-site and residential exposure to
contaminants are presented in Tables 7 through 16.
2-6
-------
UCRL-AR-119791 Interim ROD for the Building 834 Operable Unit. Site 300 1995
2.6.5. Toxicity Assessment
For each location with environmental contamination, we began by identifying those
chemicals of concern that are classified by the U.S. EPA as carcinogens (U.S. EPA, 1992c). This
classification is based on consideration of data from epidemiological studies, animal bioassays,
and in vivo and in vitro tests of genotoxicity. The three principal weight-of-evidence
classifications are Group A (human carcinogen), Group B (probable human carcinogen), and
Group C (possible human carcinogen). Placement of a chemical in Group A requires positive
evidence of carcinogenicity from occupational or epidemiological studies. Such data are
generally not available for chemicals classified as Group B or Group C carcinogens. For
chemicals in these latter two groups, the preponderance of evidence of carcinogenicity typically
comes from animal studies.
2.6.5.1. Cancer Potency Factors
.the Cancer Potency Factors (CPFs) used in our estimations of cancer risk were obtained
from values published in-either the Integrated Risk Information System (IRIS) (U.S. EPA,
,1992c), the Health Effects Assessment Summary Tables (HEAST) (U.S. EPA, I992b,c), or by
the State of California, Environmental Protection Agency (1992). We also had CPFs for TCE
and PCE provided by Region IX of the U.S. EPA (1993). All CPFs were derived using versions
of the linearized, multistage dose-response model (U.S. EPA, 1989a,b); generally, the dose- and
tumor-incidence data used in the model are from animal bioassays. For contaminants of
potential concern at Site 300, the exceptions are cadmium and beryllium; where human tumor
data are available. The model calculates the potential increased cancer risk, where increased risk
is linearly related to dose for low-dose levels typical of environmental exposure. Use of animal
bioassay data to predict human tumorigenic response assumes that animals are appropriate
models of human carcinogenic response, and that the dose-response relationships observed in
high-dose animal bioassays can be extrapolated linearly to the low doses generally associated
with human exposure to environmental contaminants. When CPFs were available for a particular
contaminant from both a U.S. EPA source and the State of California, we selected the highest
potency from among the set of values.
The CPFs (slope factors) used to calculate cancer risks in our evaluation are presented in
Tables 7 through 11.
2.6.5.2. Reference Dose
The reference doses (RfDs) that we used to evaluate potential noncarcinogenic adverse health
effects were based, when possible, on long-term (i.e., chronic) exposures, and were derived by
dividing an experimentally-determined no-observed-adverse-effect-level (NOAEL) or lowest-
observed-adverse-effect-level (LOAEL) (each has units of mg/[kg d]) by one or more
uncertainty factors (U.S. EPA, 1992b,c,d). Each of these uncertainty factors has a value that
ranges from 1 to 10 (U.S. EPA, 1992b,c,d). We selected pathway-specific RfDs, when available
(U.S. EPA, 1992b,c,d and Cal-EPA, 1992), to calculate a corresponding Hazard Quotient (HQ).
If pathway-specific RfDs were not available, we used the published RfD (typically developed for
oral exposures) to calculate an HQ for all exposure pathways.
The reference doses used to calculate noncancer hazard indices in our evaluation are
presented in Tables 12 through 16.
2.6.6. Risk Characterization
The risk assessment was performed in accordance with Risk Assessment Guidance for
Superfund (RAGS) (U.S. EPA, I989a,b). Carcinogenic risks, an evaluation of potential
noncarcinogenic exposure health hazards, and the additivity of response are described below.
2-7
-------
UCRL-AR-119791 Interim ROD for the Building 834 Operable Unit, Site 300 1995
2.6.6.1. Carcinogenic Risks
For carcinogens, we calculated the potential incremental cancer risk associated with long-
term exposure to chemicals present in surface soil, subsurface soil, and ground water. For each
chemical at each exposure location, the total risk attributable to that chemical was determined by
multiplying each pathway-specific intake (e.g., the dose due to ingestion of water or to inhalation
of contaminant that volatilizes from water to indoor air) by the corresponding pathway-specific
CPF. The products of each pathway-specific intake and pathway-specific CPF were summed to
obtain the potential incremental cancer risk for a specific chemical. We completed parallel sets
of calculations for all chemicals at each exposure location, then summed values of chemical-
specific risk from all chemicals present to yield an estimate of total incremental risk for
exposures associated with a given location.
2.6.6.2. Evaluation of Hazard from Exposure to Chemicals that Cause
Noncancer Health Effects
For chemicals of potential concern that are not classified as carcinogens, and for those
carcinogens known to cause adverse health effects other than cancer, we evaluated the potential
for exposure to result in noncarcinogenic adverse health effects by comparing the GDI with a
RfD. When calculated for a single chemical, this comparison yields an HQ. For each chemical
at each location, we summed pathway-specific HQs (where applicable) to obtain an HQ for a
given chemical. We then summed all HQs from all chemicals to yield an HI for potential
exposures associated with a given location.
2.6.6.3. Additivity of Response
In every location at or near the Building 834 OU where we calculated potential cancer risk
and noncancer HQs, GDIs were estimated for exposures attributable to multiple pathways for
each of several contaminants. As noted previously, we estimated the total potential cancer risk
and/or total HI by summing risk or HQs for all contaminants at a given location, where each
chemical-specific estimate of risk or hazard represents potential exposures from multiple
pathways. Implicit in the summation of risk and hazard is the assumption that the effects of
exposure to more than one chemical are additive. This simplifying assumption does not consider
similarities or differences in target organ toxiciry, mechanism(s) of action," or the possibility of
synergistic or antagonistic effects of different chemicals in the mixture.
2.6.7. Summary of Baseline Risks and Hazards Associated with
Contaminants
Baseline risks and hazards for the Building 834 OU were evaluated for adult on-site
exposures, additive potential risk and hazard for adults on site, and residential exposures. These
are described below, followed by a brief discussion of uncertainty.
2.6.7.1. Adult On-Site Exposures
We evaluated potential AOS exposure to this contamination by calculating the associated risk
and hazard for two different scenarios: 1) inhalation of VOCs that volatilize from subsurface
soil to the atmosphere in the immediate vicinity of the building; and 2) inhalation of VOCs that
volatilize from subsurface soil underneath the building followed by diffusion into the building
air. Both AOS exposure scenarios resulted in estimates of individual potential excess lifetime
cancer risk (6 x 1CH and 1 x 10~3) and noncancer HI (22 and 36) that exceed acceptable limits
(U.S. EPA, 1990b).
Adults on site working in the Building 834 OU can potentially be exposed to contaminants
present in surface soil. This exposure could occur if an individual inhales resuspended
2-8
-------
UCRL-AR-119791 Interim ROD for the Building 834 Operable Unit. Site 300 1995
contaminated participates, comes in direct dermal contact with surface soil, or ingests small
quantities of surface soil incidental to working in the area. Calculation of the risks associated
with these exposures yielded estimates of total risk of 4 x 10~7 (inhalation of resuspended
particulates) and 4 x 10~10 (ingesrion and dermal absorption of surface soil contaminants). The
corresponding total His arc 7.2 x 10~5 and 1.1 x 10~2.
The calculations of potential cancer risk are presented in Tables 7 through 16 and the results
are summarized in Tables 17 through 20.
2.6.7.2. Additive Risk and Hazard for Adults On Site
Adults working outdoors in the vicinity of Building 834D could be exposed simultaneously
to contaminants^ present in surface soil (by inhalation of resuspended particulates, and ingestion
and dermal absorption of surface soil contaminants) as well as by inhalation of the VOCs that
volatilize from subsurface soil into the atmosphere in the immediate vicinity of Building 834D.
. Table 21 presents the estimated potential additive risk and HI for this scenario, as well as the
contributions attributable to each source or transport medium. The values given in Table 21
indicate an estimated total risk of 6 x 10"4 and a total HI of 22. Both the total risk and the total
HI are dominated by contaminants present in subsurface soil near Building 834D and are not
substantially affected by contributions to risk or HI from surface soil contaminants.
2.6.7.3. Residential Exposures
We evaluated potential residential exposure to contaminants in ground water at weir CDF-1
due to direct ingestion of water from the regional aquifer; inhalation of VOCs that volatilize from
water to indoor air, dermal absorption of contaminants while showering or bathing; and ingestion
of homegrown beef, milk, fruits, and vegetables raised using contaminated ground water. The
calculations, presented in Tables 11 through 16 and summarized in Table 22, indicate the total
potential excess lifetime excess cancer risk attributable to residential use of ground water is
7 x 10-11, and the corresponding total HI is 2.8 x ICh6.
2.6.7.4. Uncertainty in the Baseline Public Health Assessment
Uncertainties are associated with all estimates of potential carcinogenic risk and
noncarcinogenic hazard. For example, the exposure parameters recommended by the U.S. EPA
(1990a and 1991a) are typically obtained from the 90th or 95th percentile of a distribution;- they
are not necessarily representative of an average individual or of average exposure conditions.
Consequently, .use of upper-bound parameters may contribute to overly conservative estimates of
potential exposure, and of risk and hazard.
2.6.8. Remedial Goals
To evaluate which remedial strategies would reduce potential public health risks in the
Building 834 OU, we developed health-based PRGs. The baseline risk assessment identified
subsurface soil/soil vapor in the vicinity of Building 834D as the only contaminated
environmental medium in the Building 834 OU associated with an elevated risk or hazard. We
applied the method presented in RAGS, Pan B (U.S. EPA, 1991 b) to derive health-based PRO
concentrations which, if present in subsurface soil, would be protective of human health and the
environment. The fundamental equation given in this method involves setting the total potential
risk or hazard at a target level and solving for the concentration term. A concentration of
2.2 mg/kg TCE in soil is equivalent to an HI of 1. RAGS indicates that an HI greater than 1 may
be associated with noncarcinogenic adverse health effects. The potential excess lifetime cancer
risk associated with inhalation of TCE vapors, which volatilize from subsurface soil containing
2.2 mg/kg of TCE, is 3 x 10~5. For known or suspected carcinogens, acceptable exposure levels
2-9
-------
UCRL-AR-119791 Interim ROD for the Building 834 Operable Unit. Site 300 1995
are generally concentration levels that represent an excess upper bound lifetime cancer risk to an
individual of between lO"4 and 10"6 using information between dose and response. The 10~6
risk level shall be used as the point of departure for determining remediation goals for
alternatives when ARARs are not available or are not sufficiently protective because of the
presence of multiple contaminants at the site or multiple pathways of exposure. The 10"4 to 10"6
risk range is generally acceptable for risk management decisions. The method, calculations and
parameters used to derive the health-based PRO for the Building 834 OU are presented in the
Building 834 FS. The range of health-based PRGs we calculated in our evaluation is presented
in Table 23. This table also presents the preliminary remediation goals for TCE in soil proposed
by Region IX, U.S. EPA (1994).
As shown in Table 23, the concentration of TCE in subsurface soil associated with an HI of 1
is 2.2 mg/kg. This concentration is lower than the U.S. EPA Region IX PRGs for both industrial
and residential soil (1994). To monitor the progress of subsurface soil remediation, we will
analyze soil vapor samples from SVE wells and soil vapor monitor points, rather than attempting
to collect soil samples. DOE/LLNL may also conduct direct soil vapor flux measurements in the
future.
To convert a soil concentration of 2.2 mg/kg to a soil vapor concentration in ppmv/v, we use
the following equations:
P =C x --1 x xlQ3
^-s-vapor s » RT
where,
Q-vapor = IS VRL-equivalent concentration of TCE in soil vapor (i. 348 x 10 j),
Cs = concentration of TCE in soil (2.2 mg/kg),
Kd = adsorption coefficient of TCE in soil (6.4 x 10"1),
kg
H' = Henry's Law constant (9.58 x 10~3 atnr ),
mole
o
R = ideal gas constant (8.2 x 10~5 ),
mole degrees Kelvin
T = temperature (298 degrees Kelvin), and
103 = conversion factor,
and,
^^C vflnrtr " * V/ f^ 1 " X\
j^ o VAL/UI
s-vapor v/v ~ W X P X V
where,
Cs-vaporv/v = ISVRL concentration of TCE in soil vapor (250 ppmv/v),
103 = conversion factor,
W = molecular weight of TCE (131.4 §)
mole
P = pressure (1 atm), and
V = volume (1 M3).
2-10
-------
UCRL-AR-119791 Interim ROD for the Building 834 Operable Unit. Site 300 1995
Thus, the ISVRL is set at a TCE concentration of 250 ppmy/v The selection of an interim
remediation goal for TCE alone was based on the observation that TCE is the principal
subsurface contaminant and contributes approximately 90% of the total baseline risk. Possible
cumulative effects from other contaminants will be addressed in the Final ROD for the
Building 834 OU.
2.7. Description of Remedial Action Alternatives
The Feasibility Study for the Building 834 OU presented six alternatives to address VOC
inhalation risks and to remove subsurface VOCs. Since migration of contaminated soil vapor
from the vadose,zone beneath the core of the complex may pose a threat to human health, its
management and remediation were the focus of the FS. The six remedial action alternatives are
summarized in Table* 24.
2.7.1. Alternative 1No Action
A no-action alternative is generally required as a basis from which to develop and evaluate
remedial alternatives and is the postulated basis of the baseline risk assessment. Under a no-
action response, all remedial activities in the Building 834 Complex would cease. However, the
following activities would be performed:
Installation of ten dedicated shallow soil vapor monitoring points.
Installation of three additional ground water monitor wells.
Sealing and abandonment of two existing ground water monitor wells.
Monitoring, reporting, maintenance, database management, and quality assurance/quality
control (QA/QC).
The present-worth cost of Alternative 1 is $4.19 million, which includes up to 30 years of
soil vapor and ground water monitoring.
2.7.2. Alternative 2Exposure Control
Alternative 2 focuses on 1) minimizing human exposure to inhalation of TCE and other
contaminants evaporating from the subsurface, 2) reducing the potential for further contaminant
mobilization in soil and ground water caused by infiltrating rain water, and 3)-reducing LNAPLs.
Alternative 2 includes:
All elements of Alternative 1.
Modification of building ventilation in selected buildings to provide increased circulation.
This would reduce the inhalation risk associated with exposure to indoor air.
Institutional exposure controls to reduce the health risk represented by exposure to VOCs
within potential risk areas identified in the S WRI risk assessment. These measures would
consist of fences, warning signs, and similar controls on site access and exposure.
Additional drainage controls, such as asphalt paving, along the perimeter of the
Building 834 Complex core area. The objective would be to reduce recharge of water to
the perched water-bearing zone.
LNAPL skimming and disposal to reduce LNAPL mass.
The present-worth cost of Alternative 2 is $5.69 million. This cost includes up to 2 years of
LNAPL recovery and up to 30 years of soil vapor and ground water monitoring.
2-11
-------
UCRL-AR-119791 Interim ROD for the Building 834 Operable Unit. Site 300 1995
2.7.3. Alternative 3Source Mass Removal using SVE
The objective of Alternative 3 is to 1) reduce soil vapor VOC concentrations in the upper
12 ft of the vadose zone to health-risk-based concentrations (250 ppmv/v) associated with a total
HI of 1, which corresponds to an excess potential cancer risk of 3 x 10~5, and 2) reduce
LNAPLs. Alternative 3 consists of:
All elements of Alternative 2.
The institutional and exposure controls described in Alternatives 1 and 2, including
additional ventilation to reduce potential exposure risks due to inhalation of VOC vapors.
SVE and treatment
The present-worth cost of Alternative 3 is $8.72 million. This cost includes up to 2 years of
LNAPL recovery, up to 5 years of SVE, and up to 30 years of soil vapor and ground water
monitoring.
2.7.4. Alternative 4Source Mass Removal using SVE and Dewatering
As with Alternative 3, the objective of Alternative 4 is to 1) reduce VOC concentrations in
the vadose zone to health-risk-based concentrations associated with a total HI of 1, and 2) reduce
LNAPL contaminant mass. The major components of Alternative 4 include:
All elements of Alternative 3.
Partial dewatering of the perched water-bearing zone to enhance SVE. Extracted ground
water would be treated using an oil/water separator to remove LNAPLs, a low-profile
tray (or similar type) air stripper, and a GAC vapor emissions control. Treated ground
water effluent would be pumped to an effluent storage tank and later discharged on site
through an air misting system to a sloped, undeveloped, grassy area east of the
Building 834 Complex.
The present-worth cost of Alternative 4 is $10.38 million. This includes up to 2 years of
LNAPL recovery, up to 5 years of SVE and dewatering, and up to 30 years of soil vapor and
ground, water monitoring.
2.7.5. Alternative 5Source Mass Removal Using SVE and Ground Water
Plume Control
As with Alternatives 3 and 4, the objective of Alternative 5 is to reduce VOC concentrations
in the vadose zone to health risk-based concentrations and reduce LNAPL contaminant mass.
Alternative 5 would include all of the elements for Alternative 4 and use additional dewatering at
the Building 834 septic tank release area and the W-834-T2 and -T4 well cluster areas to provide
downgradient VOC plume control and mass removal. The additional dewatering of the perched
water-bearing zone would also reduce the potential for future plume migration by further
reducing plume mass and volume, thus being slightly more protective of the environment. The
major components of Alternative 5 include:
All elements of Alternative 4.
Downgradient ground water extraction for plume migration control.
The present-worth cost of Alternatives ranges from $11.80million to $16.45 million
depending on the duration of ground water extraction. This includes up to 5 years of SVE,
between 5 and 30 years of dewatering (with up to 2 years of LNAPL recovery), .up to 20 years of
soil vapor monitoring, and up to 30 years of ground water monitoring.
2-12
-------
UCRL-AR-119791 ' Interim ROD for the Building 834 Operable Unit. Site 300 1995
2.7.6. Alternative 6Interim Source Mass Removal
As with Alternatives 3, 4, and 5, the objective of Alternative 6 is to reduce VOC vapor
concentrations in the vadose zone to health-based concentrations associated with a total HI of 1,
and reduce LNAPL contaminant masses near the release areas. Alternative 6 also adds DNAPL
mass reduction via innovative technologies. The major components of Alternative 6 include:
All elements of Alternative 4.
SVE and treatment. Extracted soil vapor will be treated using GAC. The ISVRL goal is
a TCE concentration of 250 ppmv/v in subsurface soil vapor. Modeling indicates that this
goal will be reached in approximately 5 years.
Innovative technology development, testing, and application both for enhanced removal
of undissolvtd TCE DNAPL in the vadose and shallow, perched water-bearing zones,
and treatment of extracted soil vapor and ground water. The objective will be to identify
technologies that shorten cleanup time, improve cleanup efficiency, and reduce cost.
The present-worth cost of the selected alternative is estimated to be approximately
$10.38 million. This assumes up to 2 years of LNAPL recovery, up to 5 years of SVE and
dewatering, and up to 30 years of soil vapor and ground water monitoring. These time and cost
estimates do not include the development or testing of any innovative technologies.
Because no proven technology is currently available to remediate TCE DNAPL in the
subsurface, DOE/LLNL will test innovative technologies, which may include alcohol flooding,
surfactants, bioremediation, dual-gas partitioning tracers, in situ radio frequency heating, resin
adsorption, electron accelerator, and ozone treatment. The application of innovative technologies
is extremely important in addressing subsurface DNAPL contamination. Analytical data
strongly suggest that a volume of contaminant may be present as DNAPLs in the subsurface, and
no DNAPL remediation systems currently exist. Three innovative technologies (alcohol
flooding, surfactants, and dual gas partitioning tracers) are directly applicable to characterizing
and/or remediating subsurface DNAPLs, and are currently under consideration. Descriptions of
these technologies are presented in the FS.
2.8. Summary of Comparative Analysis of Alternatives
We have evaluated the characteristics of the six alternatives with respect to the nine EPA
evaluation criteria:
Overall protection of human health and environment.
Compliance with ARARs.
Short-term effectiveness.
Long-term effectiveness and permanence.
Reduction of toxicity, mobility, or volume.
Implementability.
Cost-effectiveness.
Regulatory acceptance.
Community acceptance.
DOE/LLNL and the regulatory agencies agree that Alternative 6 provides the best balance of
trade-offs with respect to the evaluation criteria. Community acceptance is discussed in the
Responsiveness Summary of this Interim ROD. In the following sections, Alternatives 1
2-13
-------
UCRL-AR-119791 Interim ROD for the Building 834 Operable Unit, Site 300 1995
through 6 are compared in relation to the remaining seven criteria. Table 25 summarizes this
comparative evaluation with respect to all nine criteria.
2.8.1. Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment
Alternative 1 does not actively remediate contaminated soil or ground water, which will
not protect human health or the environment.
Alternative 2 protects human health inside the buildings by providing inhalation exposure
controls. However, this alternative would not protect human health and the environment
outside of the buildings because it does not remediate contaminated soil vapor or ground
water.
Alternative 3 protects human health and the environment by using SVE to remediate
contaminants in the shallow vadose zone and skimming to reduce LNAPL mass.
Alternative 4 protects human health and the environment by supplementing SVE with
dewatering. This method would provide more efficient contaminant removal than
Alternative 3 since a greater soil volume will be exposed for SVE by dewatering.
Alternative 5 supplements SVE and. dewatering with more extensive ground water
extraction, which would remove more subsurface contaminants more efficiently than
Alternative 4. However, this alternative would not be more protective of human health
and the environment than Alternatives 4 or 6 since there is no pathway that could result in
exposure to contaminants in the perched ground water.
Alternative 6 (the selected remedy) combines the elements of Alternative 4 with the
testing and implementation of innovative technologies for DNAPL remediation. This
alternative would be at least as protective to human health 'and the environment as
Alternative 4 and may be more protective of the environment since innovative
technologies may prove to be more effective at contaminant mass removal than SVE and
dewatering alone.
2.8.2. Compliance with AKARs
Except for Alternative 1 (no action), all alternatives would meet all ARARs for this interim
remedial action. DOE/LLNL is currently working with the Central Valley RWQCB to propose
an amendment to the Basin Plan to exclude the perched water-bearing zone as a drinking water
source because DOE/LLNL believes that the perched water-bearing zone does not meet State
criteria with respect to water yield or natural quality (even without contamination). The Basin
Plan currently defines the perched water-bearing zone as a potential drinking water source and,
therefore, may require remediation of ground water to protect beneficial use. Such a requirement
may include remediation to background concentrations depending on technical and economic
feasibility. If the RWQCB grants an amendment, less stringent ground water cleanup criteria and
soil cleanup criteria to protect ground water may be applied. Ground water remediation goals
and soil remediation goals to protect water quality will be presented in the Final ROD for the
Building 834 OU.
2.8.3. Short-Term Effectiveness
Alternative 1 does not remove significant quantities of VOCs from the subsurface.
Therefore, this alternative would not be effective in short-term remediation of the site.
Alternative 2 removes only LNAPLs from the subsurface. Since this alternative does not
reduce VOC mass, it would not provide short-term remediation of the site.
Alternative 3 uses SVE to immediately begin removing VOCs and reducing VOC soil
vapor concentrations.
2-14
-------
UCRL-Aft-J19791 Interim ROD for the Building 834 Operable Unit, Site 300 1995
Alternative 4 combines SVE with dewatering to immediately begin removing VOCs and
reducing VOC soil vapor concentrations. Dewatering would allow Alternative 4 to
remediate a greater soil volume than Alternative 3.
Alternative 5 combines the elements of Alternative 4 with more extensive ground water
extraction to immediately begin removing VOCs and reducing VOC soil vapor
concentrations. This alternative would probably be as effective in the short term as
Alternative 4.
Alternative 6 combines all elements of Alternative 4 with treatability testing of
innovative remediation technologies. Innovative technologies may provide, the greatest
short-term effectiveness by removing higher quantities of contaminants than Alternative 4
or5.
All alternatives would be protective of site workers and the community during the
remedial action. No adverse environmental impacts are anticipated.
2.8.4. Long-Term Effectiveness and Permanence
Alternative 1 does not provide long-term effectiveness in meeting ISVRLs by not
actively remediating contaminated soil and ground water.
Alternative 2 removes only LNAPLs from the subsurface. Since this alternative does not
reduce VOC mass, it would not provide long-term effectiveness or permanence.
Alternative 3 uses SVE to provide long-term effectiveness through VOC mass removal
and would permanently reduce VOC soil vapor concentrations to ISVRLs.
Alternative 4 combines SVE with dewatering to remediate a greater soil volume than
Alternative 3 and would provide long-term effectiveness and permanence.
Alternative 5 uses SVE and more extensive ground water extraction to provide long-term
effectiveness through mass removal and plume control, which would provide long-term
effectiveness and permanence in reducing soil vapor concentrations of VOCs to ISVRLs.
Alternative 6 combines all elements of Alternative 4 with treatability testing of
innovative remediation technologies. Innovative technologies 'may.provide the greatest
long-term effectiveness and permanence by removing higher quantities of contaminants
than the technologies of Alternative 4 alone and, thus, are also more protective of the
environment.
2.8.5. Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility, or Volume
Alternative 1 does not remove significant .quantities of VOCs from the subsurface.
Therefore, this alternative would not reduce toxicity, mobility, or volume of the VOCs.
Alternative 2 removes LNAPLs, but would not remove significant quantities of VOCs
from the subsurface. Therefore, this alternative would not reduce the toxicity, mobility,
or volume of the VOCs.
SVE and LNAPL recovery in Alternative 3 would significantly reduce the toxicity,
mobility, and volume of contaminants in the subsurface.
By adding dewatering to SVE and LNAPL recovery, Alternative 4 would reduce the
toxicity, mobility, and volume of contaminants in the subsurface more efficiently than
Alternative 3.
SVE, dewatering, plume control, and LNAPL recovery in Alternative 5 would effectively
reduce the toxicity, mobility, and volume of contaminants in the subsurface.
2-15
-------
UCRL-AR-119791 Interim ROD for the Building 834 Operable Unit. Site 300 1995
Alternative 6 would supplement the elements of Alternative 4 with innovative
technologies, which may reduce the mobility, volume, and mass of VOCs, DNAPLs, and
LNAPLs in the vadose zone and saturated zone more effectively than Alternative 4 alone.
Because Alternative 6 will likely remove the largest amount of contaminant source mass,
it is more protective of the environment and reduces future migration potential.
2.8.6. Implementability
Alternative 1 can be implemented easily with slight modifications to the existing ground
water monitoring program.
Alternative 2 can be implemented using standard design and construction techniques and
materials to modify building ventilation and surface drainage. Passive skimmers for
LNAPL recovery are readily available, and DOE/LLNL has facilities to properly handle
recovered LNAPLs as hazardous waste.
The SVE system and surface and drainage modifications of Alternative 3 are readily
implementable. Major components of the remediation system are currently in place, and
SVE, air stripping, and vapor-phase GAC are commercially available. However, SVE
would involve some additional construction and long-term operation of remediation
facilities.
The soil vapor and ground water treatment technologies incorporated into Alternatives 4
and 5 are readily available and many of the major components are already in place.
These alternatives would involve some additional construction and long-term operation
of remediation facilities in addition to the drainage control and ventilation projects.
Phase separation, air stripping, and vapor-phase GAC are commercially available.
In Alternative 6, the soil vapor and ground water treatment technologies of Alternative 4
are combined with treatabiliry testing of innovative technologies. Although the design of
innovative technologies is difficult to predict, DOE/LLNL has the technical resources to
implement each possible remedial alternative.
2.8.7. Cost-Effectiveness
The present-worth cost of Alternative 1 is $4.19 million for up to 30 years of soil vapor
and ground water monitoring. This alternative has the lowest cost because it does not
include remedial actions.
The present-worth cost of Alternative 2 is $5.69 million. This includes up to 2 years of
LNAPL recovery and up to 30 years of soil vapor and ground water monitoring.
Alternative 2 has a higher cost because it includes capital construction projects (drainage
controls and ventilation retrofits) and ground water monitoring, but no remediation by
long-term extraction and treatment.
The present-worth cost of Alternative 3 is $8.72 million. This includes up to 2 years of
LNAPL recovery, up to 5 years of SVE, and up to 30 years of soil vapor and ground
water monitoring. The higher cost of Alternative 3 is due to capital construction projects,
as well as ground water monitoring and soil vapor treatment.
The present-worth cost of Alternative 4 is $10.38 million. This includes up to 2 years of
LNAPL recovery, up to 5 years of SVE and dewatering, and up to 30 years of soil vapor
and ground water monitoring. The dewatering and ground water treatment in
Alternative 4 adds cost, so estimated total costs for this alternative are greater than for
Alternative 3.
The present-worth cost of Alternative 5 ranges from $11.80 million to $16.45 million
depending on the duration of ground water extraction. This includes up to 5 years of
2-16
-------
UCRL-AR-U9791 Interim ROD for the Building 834 Operable Unit. Site 300 1995
SVE, between 5 and 30 years of dewatering, up to 2 years of LNAPL recovery, up to
20 years of soil vapor monitoring, and up to 30 years of ground water monitoring. The
estimated total costs of Alternative 5 may be the highest because the duration of ground
water extraction could be up to 30 years, compared to 5 years for Alternatives 3 and 4. In
addition, this alternative requires a second ground water extraction and treatment system.
The total estimated cost of Alternative 6 is $10.38 million. Since costs and effects of
innovative technologies are difficult to predict, their costs are not included in this
estimate. However, if innovative technologies remove contaminants more efficiently
than SVE and dewatering alone, site cleanup goals may be reached sooner and costs may
be reduced.
*
2.9. Selected Remedy
DOE/LLNL, U.S. EPA, RWQCB, and DTSC agree that Alternative 6, which combines the
treatability testing of innovative technologies with SVE and partial dewatering, would provide
the best balance of trade-offs with respect to the CERCLA evaluation criteria. DOE/LLNL
would begin subsurface remediation using SVE with dewatering to reduce potential risk and
contaminant mass. During and/or following these actions, innovative remediation technologies
would be applied and tested to enhance TCE DNAPL removal, and treatment of extracted soil
vapor and/or ground water.
2.9.1. Treatment Sys.tem Design
The majority of the risk reduction components are readily implementable with minor
modifications to the existing soil vapor and ground water extraction and treatment systems at the
core area of the Building 834 OU. The risk level for TCE is based on soil vapor exposure
outside of Building 834D. The selected remedy targets a 3 x 10~5 cancer risk and an HI of 1 for
an IS VRL for TCE of 250 ppmv/v, which corresponds to a soil concentration of 2.2 mg/kg.
The major components of the selected remedy include:
Installation of additional dedicated soil vapor monitoring points to monitor the progress
of remediation.
Installation of additional ground water monitor wells.
Sealing and abandonment of several existing ground water monitor wells.
Modification of ventilation systems in selected buildings to increase air circulation and
reduce the inhalation risk from TCE vapors that may be migrating into the building from
subsurface soil.
Institutional exposure controls such as fences, warning signs, and excavation restrictions.
Surface water drainage controls, such as asphalt paving, to reduce recharge of
precipitation to the perched water-bearing zone.
LNAPL (T-BOS and diesel) extraction and treatment. Extracted LNAPLs in
well W-834-D8 will be removed using a passive skimmer. T-BOS from
wells W-834-D3, -D4, and -D5 will be actively skimmed using a pneumatic pumping
system. All recovered LNAPLs will be removed from the site by a licensed hauler and
transported to a facility that has a Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA)
permit for either incineration or recycling.
SVE and treatment (Fig. 9). DOE/LLNL will upgrade the existing SVE system at the
Building 834 Complex to enhance its TCE removal capacity. New wells would be
installed to provide additional locations for SVE. The locations of existing and proposed
2-17
-------
UCRL-AR-119791 Interim ROD for the Building 834 Operable Unit. Siie 300 1995
SVE wells are shown on Figure 4-3 of the FS. Extracted soil vapor will be treated using
GAC or other technology. The ISVRL TCE concentration is 250 ppmv/Vj and modeling
indicates that this goal would be reached in approximately 5 years. The SVE model used
to estimate soil vapor cleanup time accounts for all possible phases, including DNAPL.
However, it is possible that continuous volatilization of DNAPLs into the vadose zone
could lengthen the actual cleanup time. Concentrations of contaminants in soil vapor
would be monitored at dedicated soil vapor sampling points and at SVE wells for an
agreed-upon period of time. If TCE concentrations increase above an acceptable level,
the SVE system will be restarted.
Partial dewatering of the perched water-bearing zone to enhance the effectiveness of SVE
by exposing a larger soil volume to vapor flow. Extracted ground water will be treated
by a low-profile type (or similar type) air stripper with GAC emissions control, then
discharged through an air misting system (Fig. 10). There is currently no specific
cleanup goal for in-situ ground water in the perched zone.
Innovative technology development, both for enhanced removal of subsurface
contamination and treatment of extracted soil vapor and ground water. The objective will
be to identify technologies that shorten cleanup time, improve cleanup efficiency, and
reduce cost. Technologies to be tested may include, but are not limited to, alcohol
> flooding, surfactants, bioremediation, dual-gas partitioning tracers, in situ radio frequency
heating, resin adsorption, electron accelerator, and ozone treatment. Three of these
innovative technologies (alcohol flooding, surfactants, and dual-gas partitioning tracers)
are directly applicable to characterizing and/or remediating subsurface DNAPLs, and are
currently under consideration for the Building 834 Complex core area.
The Final ROD for the Building 834 OU will identify the selected remedial technologies.
Evaluation criteria will be developed to ensure that remediation is conducted as
effectively and rapidly as possible. If monitoring indicates that the tested technology
fails to meet die evaluation criteria, DOE/LLNL will meet with the regulatory agencies to
discuss the implementation of another remedial alternative. If a tested technology
successfully meets the established criteria, that technology will be permanently
implemented as soon as possible.
Table 26 shows the current soil vapor and ground water monitoring program for the
Building 834 OU.
2.9.2. Summary of Preliminary Cost Estimates
The 1994 present-worth cost of the selected remedy is estimated to be approximately
$10.38 million as summarized in Table 27. This cost estimate assumes up to 2 years of LNAPL
recovery, up to 5 years of SVE and dewatering, and up to 30 years of soil vapor and ground
water monitoring. These time and cost estimates do not include the development or testirig of
innovative technologies. Cost estimates and equipment may change as the result of
modifications during the remedial design and construction processes. Cleanup goals and length
of cleanup time can be re-evaluated with the regulatory agencies every 5 years, based on the
effectiveness of the remediation system, changes in site conditions, and changes in regulatory
requirements.
2.10. Statutory Determinations
\/ The selected interim response action for the Building 834 operable unit satisfies the mandates
of CERCLA Section 121. The remedy will:
Protect human health by achieving the inhalation risk 'RAO for the operable unit.
2-18
-------
UCRL-AR-119791 Interim ROD for the Building 834 Operable Unit. Site 300 1995
Comply with ARARs (or justify an interim waiver).
Be cost effective.
DOE/LLNL, U.S. EPA, RWQCB, and DISC believe that among the six proposed remedial
alternatives, Alternative 6 provides the best balance of trade-offs with respect to the CERCLA
evaluation criteria. Site 300 will remain under the control and ownership of DOE for the
foreseeable future. This relationship is a major factor in defining the scope of the remedy
proposed in this Interim ROD. A brief description of how the selected remedy satisfies each of
these statutory requirements is provided below.
2.10.1. Overall Protection of Human Health and the Environment
Potential elevated health risks result from VOC contamination in vadose zone soil vapor
between 0-12 ft beneath the core of the Building 834 Complex. SVE with dewatering and
LNAPL recovery will be used during or post-surfactant injection to reduce the volume and
toxicity of the contaminants and limit VOC migration. All emissions and ground water will be
treated before discharge to the environment. Soil vapor and ground water monitoring will
document the projgress and permanence of all remediation methods.
Based on the chemicals of concern, exposure routes, potential receptors, and the findings of
the baseline risk assessment, the potential excess cancer risk remediation goal for soil vapor is
3 x 10-5, based on achieving an HI of 1.
Innovative remedial technologies will be implemented and tested arthe site. DOE/LLNL
plans to begin this effort by testing surfactant injection, which should increase the solubility of
DNAPLs and LNAPLs and increase contaminant recovery rates. In addition, protection of
human health will be ensured by improving ventilation in Buildings 834A, D, J, and O, and
restricting site construction and access. Surface drainage improvements in the Building 834
Complex area will reduce infiltration and subsequent migration of contaminants from the source
areas.
In accordance with a DOE Secretarial Policy issued in June 1994, NEPA values contained in
the Environmental Considerations chapter of the FS satisfy the requirements for CERCLA-
NEPA integration. As pan of these requirements, we evaluated the potential impacts on the
existing on- and off-site environment due to implementation of the remedial alternatives. No
significant adverse impacts due to implementation of the alternatives were identified.
2.10.2. Compliance with ARARs
Federal and state chemical-, location-, and action-specific ARARs affecting the selected
interim remedy are described in Table 28. The selected remedy meets all ARARs. DOE/LLNL
is currently working with the Central Valley RWQCB to propose an amendment to the Basin
Plan to exclude the perched water-bearing zone as a drinking water source because it does not
meet State criteria with respect to water yield or natural quality (even without contamination).
The Basin Plan currently defines the perched water-bearing zone as a potential drinking water
source and, therefore, may require remediation of ground water to protect beneficial use. Such a
requirement may include remediation to background concentrations depending on technical and
economic feasibility. If the RWQCB grants the amendment, less stringent ground water cleanup
criteria may be applied. Ground water remediation goals will be presented in the Final ROD for
the Building 834 OU.
2-19
-------
UCRL-AR-119791 Interim ROD for the Building 834 Operable Unit, Site 300 1995
2.10.3. Utilization of Permanent Solutions and Alternative Treatment
Technologies
The selected remedy provides long-term effectiveness through mass removal, which will
reduce VOC soil vapor concentrations to ISVRLs and acceptable health risk levels. The selected
remedy will test, implement, and evaluate promising innovative remedial technologies aimed at
DNAPL removal and extracted water and vapor treatment to the fullest extent practicable.
2.10.4. Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility, or Volume as a Principal Element
Contaminant toxicity, mobility, and volume in the soil and ground water will be reduced
irreversibly by SVE, dewatering, and LNAPL recovery. Innovative technologies may
significantly reduce the toxicity, mobility, and volume of DNAPLs in the subsurface, enhance
the progress of VOC removal, and be more protective of the environment. SVE and dewatering
will reduce the volume and concentration of contaminants in the subsurface; however, without
DNAPL removal, subsurface concentrations of TCE could rebound after SVE is discontinued.
2.10.5. Cost Effectiveness
DOE/LLNL, U.S. EPA, RWQCB, and DTSC agree that Alternative 6 is the best value since
this remedial alternative provides the opportunity to test and implement innovative technologies
that may prove to be more efficient and cost-effective than the currently available technologies.
Each alternative was costed on the basis of a design to reduce inhalation risks and provide source
mass removal of contaminants, to prevent emissions of VOCs to the air, and to treat waste water
to a TCE concentration <0.5 fig/L (Fig. 11).
2-20
-------
UCRL-AR-119791 Interim ROD for the Building 834 Operable Unit. Site 300 1995
3. Responsiveness Summary
This section responds to public comments directed to DOE, LLNL, U.S. EPA, and the State
of California regarding the Proposed Plan (PP) for the remediation of the Building 834 Operable
Unit (OU). Responses to community comments and concerns are incorporated into this Interim
ROD.
The public comment period on the PP began January 9, 1995, and ended February 9, 1995.
On January 24,1995, DOE/LLNL and the regulatory agencies held a public meeting'at the Tracy
Inn in Tracy, California to present the proposed remediation plan and allow the public to ask
questions and comment on the preferred remedial alternative. After representatives from LLNL
summarized the information presented in PP members of the public directed questions to a panel
of POE, LLNL, and regulatory agency representatives. Following the question-and-answer
session, three members of the public read their concerns into the formal public record. Although
no letters were received during the PP comment period, members of the Tri-Valley Citizens
Against a Radioactive Environment (CAREs) provided a written record of their meeting
comments and additional comments that were not presented at the meeting. The meeting
transcript and a copy of the written concerns are available to the public at the LLNL Visitors
Center and the Tracy Public Library.
3.1. Organization of the Responsiveness Summary
The Responsiveness Summary is organized to clearly present the breadth of public concerns
while avoiding repetition. In keeping with EPA Superfund guidance and common accepted
practice, comments are grouped by subject If two or more comments are identical or similar,
only one response is provided. Whenever possible, comments are summarized verbatim from
either the meeting transcript or written comments.
Public comments are grouped into the following sections:
Selected Remedial Action.
Protection of the Environment.
Impact of Future Activities.
Community Relations.
General Comments.
3.2. Summary of Public Comments and Responses
3.2.1. Selected Remedial Action
Comment 1:
One of the things that needs to be stated clearly and unequivocally is that the levels of
contamination both at Building 834 area and Site 300 in general are extremely high. I've
worked in monitoring cleanups at other facilities and these, you know, numbers like 800,000
parts per billion TCE. I mean, that's not a number you see very often. And the tritium peaking
at eight hundred thousand picocuries per liter with current concentrations of a least 300
thousand picocuries _ per liter. So this is a very serious cleanup even though the area is more
remote, say, than the main site. The contaminant levels are themselves a concern. At that level,
3-1
-------
UCRL-AR-119791 Interim ROD for the Building 834 Operable Unit. Site 300 1995
we suspect that there is probably free product sinking in terms of the TCE contamination that
will complicate the cleanup. That needs to be considered.
Response 1:
Remediation of the perched water-bearing zone and standards for ground water cleanup will
be discussed in the Final ROD. Although the perched ground water contains VOCs, this ground
water does not pose a risk to human health or the environment because there are no exposure
pathways. Since migration of contaminated soil vapor from the vadose zone beneath the core of
the Building 834 Complex may pose a threat to human health, monitoring, management, and
remediation are the purposes of the selected interim remedial action.
DOE/LLNL and the regulatory agencies agree that the selected interim remediation decisions
made for this site will mitigate the potential human health inhalation risk associated with the
Building 834 OIL We agree that TCE as free product probably exists as residual DNAPL in the
subsurface. This is a primary driver for the inclusion of innovative technologies in the selected
remedy. The high concentrations of VOCs in ground water will be addressed in the Final ROD.
No cleanup goals for ground water are presented in this Interim ROD.
There was no tritium used, nor has any tritium contamination been detected, in the Building
834 OU.
Comment: 2
The cleanup standard chosen for Volatile Organic Compounds in soil (2.2 mg/kg or
250ppmv/v in soil vapor) appears to be set too high. We note that in the South Bay, industry is
asking for a standard of 0.5 mg/kg. Moreover, the cleanup standard assumes an occupational
standard in industrial use of Building 834. While this assumption may be reasonable in the short
term, given the uncertainties of funding for Lab activities, we believe a more conservative
standard should be analyzed. Our position is supported by EPA OSWER Directive 9355.0-30,
Role of the Baseline Risk Assessment in Superfund Remedy Selection Decision, April 1991. On
page 5, EPA states, "both current and reasonable future risks need to be considered..." based on
an assumption of future land use different from that which currently exists. The potential land
use "associated with the highest level of exposure and risk..." should be used in developing
remediation objectives. Further, the National Contingency Plan states that EPA will consider
future land use as residential in many cases, "and undeveloped areas can be assumed to be
residential in the future unless sites are in areas where residential land use is unreasonable."
We do not believe that LLNL has made any showing that future residential land use either
upon or abutting Site 300 is an unreasonable scenario. Therefore, if the assumption concerning
reasonable land use yields a stricter cleanup standard, we want the Lab to commit to this stricter
standard, should land use assumptions change.
Response 2:
The ISVRL was developed by modeling potential TCE vapor inhalation risks. The
concentration of TCE in subsurface soil associated with this ISVRL is an HJ of 1 and a potential
excess lifetime cancer risk of 3 x 10~5. The regulatory agencies concur with this ISVRL cleanup
goal.
These standards do not address the potential for soil vapor to contaminate ground water.
However, the TCE concentrations in perched ground water exceed the level that could be caused
by soil vapor contamination alone. Given the concentration of VOCs in ground water, VOCs
could volatilize into the vadose zone.
DOE is committed to maintaining stewardship of LLNL Site 300 for the foreseeable future,
and plans to continue operations at the site in support of national security programs and other
activities of national interest. In so doing, Site 300 and the Building 834 OU will remain
inaccessible to the public by the use of security fences and protective surveillance.
3-2
-------
UCRL-AR-119791 Interim ROD for the Building 834 Operable Unit. Site 300 1995
The maintenance and mission of Site 300 depend on Congressional funding decisions. If the
U.S. Congress decides to terminate or modify operations at Site 300, DOE (or its successor
agency, if appropriate) would manage an orderly shutdown of the facility, which would include a
reassessment of cleanup standards. The Interim ROD would be modified to reflect changes in
land use that could potentially affect site remediation.
Comment 3:
We are deeply concerned that there is no ground water standard for the perched aquifer.
While we understand that the Lab is applying for a variance from the State classification as a
potential drinking water source, we believe that the ground water should be cleaned up at least
to the Maximum Contaminant Level or to a standard which will not incur an Incremental
Lifetime Cancer'Risk higher than one in a million. The documentation which clearly lays out
how this standard will be met should be identified. In this context, we note that there is some
evidence the perched aquifer may have been much larger in the past. It is at least possible the
"mystery" source of contamination in the Building 833 area could have been the perched
aquifer. So we have concerns regarding the Lab's request to delist this aquifer from State
waters.
Response 3:
As stated in Response 1, remediation of the perched water-bearing zone will be addressed in
the Final ROD. Although the perched ground water contains VOCs, this ground water does not
pose a risk to human health or the environment because there are no exposure pathways.
Because migration of contaminated soil vapor from the vadose zone beneath the core of the
Building 834 Complex may pose a potential threat to human health, the selected interim remedial
action has been formulated to monitor, manage, and remediate the contamination.
Under the current Basin Plan, the Central Valley RWQCB considers the perched water-
bearing zone a potential drinking water source, a potential receptor, and a possible source and
pathway for contaminants to reach the regional aquifer. However, DOE/LLNL is presently
working with the Central Valley RWQCB staff to propose an amendment to the Basin Plan to
exclude the perched water-bearing zone as a drinking water source. DOE/LLNL believe the
existing field and analytical data indicate that the perched water-bearing zone does not meet
criteria contained in State Water Resources Control Board Resolution 88-63 (Sources of
Drinking Water Policy) with respect to water yield or natural quality (even without
contamination). They further believe that the perched water-bearing zone does not provide a
pathway for contaminants to reach the regional aquifer. In addition, DOE/LLNL believe^ that
existing hydraulic and analytical data provide significant evidence of the impermeable nature of
the perching horizon and the lack of hydraulic communication with the regional aquifer. They
will include this information in the proposed amendment.
The Basin Plan currently defines the perched water-bearing zone as a potential drinking
water source and, therefore, may require remediation to protect beneficial use. Such a
requirement may include remediation to background concentrations or to MCLs, if it is
technically or economically infeasible to achieve background concentrations. If the RWQCB
grants the amendment, less stringent in-situ ground water cleanup criteria may be applied, but
additional ground water remedial actions, including but not limited to additional soil source
control, will still need to be considered. Cleanup goals for the perched ground water-bearing
zone will be developed and presented in the Final ROD.
Comment 4:
That plume, as you may recall from the presentation this evening, 1^00 feet long, about
500 feet wide, as I recall, of the perched water -- and supposedly it sits on top of this clay,
3-3
-------
UCRL-AR-119791 Interim ROD for the Building 834 Operable Unit, Site 300 7995
impervious clay, which we might conclude as, well, why not just let it sit there and do nothing
about it? We feel that this is important to continue that procedure of getting rid of that water.
Response 4:
Because ground water cleanup standards have not yet been established, remediation of the
perched water-bearing zone will be addressed in the Final ROD. However, the interim action
includes dewatering, which will remove and treat significant amounts of perched ground water.
Comment 5:
Referring to p. 1-18 and p. 1-21 (of the FS), please explain what appears to be incongruous
findings: first, that it is estimated that 540 gallons of TCE was released in the vicinity of
Building 834 over 16 years; and, second, that there were recent TCE concentrations in ground
water up to 800,000 pg/L (ppb).
Response 5:
Historical information and analytical data presented in the SWRI and FS indicate that
approximately 550 gallons of VOCs, primarily TCE, were released at ten locations at the
Building 834 Complex between the early 1960s and early-1980s. Some of the VOCs eventually
migrated to the perched water-bearing zone, which caused the ground water to contain TCE
concentrations as high as 800,000 ppb. The estimated volume of TCE spilled is consistent with
TCE'concentrations in ground water.
The volume of TCE in soil was estimated to be 270 gallons for the soil vapor modeling
presented in Appendix F of the Final Feasibility Study (FS)for the Building 834 Operable Unit
(Landgraf et al., 1994). Mass estimates of TCE in ground water are approximately 800 Ib
(roughly 70 gallons). These estimates arc uncertain due to the undocumented volume of VOCs
released, significant subsurface lithologic heterogeneity; limited soil analytical data, variable
saturated thickness, and variable VOC concentrations in ground water and soil. As such, these
estimates are subject to change with additional information.
Comment 6:
Before the plan is approved (e.g. by the community) it is important the monitoring plan be
specified (e.g. number of wells, depth of wells, frequency of sampling, duration of sampling,
location of wells etc.) and a contingency plan be specified which delineates what the Lab is
committed to do in the event it finds the plume is moving, or is not being remediated in the time-
frame or to the extent expected.
Response 6:
A preliminary monitoring plan was presented in the FS primarily to support cost estimates
for each remedial alternative. Consistent with the procedures at other U.S. EPA Superfund sites,
the monitoring program will be presented in the Remedial Design/Remedial Action documents.
Because the selected remedy results in contamination remaining on site (i.e., not immediately
remediated or removed), the agencies are required to review the progress of remediation at least
every 5 years to ensure that the selected remedy is effective and continues to adequately protect
human health and the environment. Progress of site cleanup will be published in periodic
progress reports. If monitoring data indicate that the selected remedy is not effectively
remediating the site, DOE/LLNL and the regulatory agencies will discuss implementing another
remedial alternative.
Comment 7:
The Feasibility Study (FS) and/or subsequent primary documents should contain milestones
by which the success of the remediation can be evaluated. The remedy and accompanying plan
should contain firm commitments. It is important to community acceptance that the FS and
3-4
-------
VCRL-AR-119791 Interim ROD for the Building 834 Operable Unit, Site 300 1995
subsequent plans contain a measurable schedule and performance standards which can be
verified. Commitments as to the tuning of cleanup activities can and should be spelled out.
Further, we recommend two sets of milestones be codified: contaminant milestones and
mass removal milestones. Contaminant milestones would require the Department of Energy and
the Lab to set timed goals for incrementally reducing the concentration of VOCs in soil and
ground water. Mass removal milestones would the removal of a specified volume of
contamination during a specified time period. Five year goals should be spelled out in the
Interim ROD and/or other appropriate document(s).
Response?:
Consistent with U.S. EPA Superfund site procedures and as specified by the CERCLA
process, schedules and performance milestones will be presented in design documents..
Every 5 years, the regulatory agencies will review the progress of remediation to ensure that
the .remedy is effective and continues to provide adequate protection of human health and the
environment Reports on the site cleanup will be published.
If the selected remedy fails to meet the criteria set forth in the design documents, DOE/LLNL
and the regulatory agencies will discuss implementing another remedial alternative.
Comment 8:
With regard to the Building 834 complex, the problems there that we have in soil and
groundwater are not unique to Californians. It's in the Silicon Valley. It'-s everywhere. We got
.chlorinated solvents in soil and ground water. Big problem.
What is unique about the Building 834 complex is we got this little perched aquifer up on a
hilltop isolated from the regional aquifer, at [a 280 foot] separation. This has created an
opportunity for the Department of Energy. There's letters from the State Water Resources
Control Board which support the Lawrence Livermore and DOE to proceed with testing
innovative technologies for the remediation of solvents, free-phase solvents (DNAPLs).
It gives us an opportunity to test and search out technologies which will, if proven, will go
into other areas like Silicon Valley, wherever we have these big spills, and accelerate those
cleanup efforts.
So I just wanted to get it on the record here that I think that the Regional Board has come out
in support of the innovative technology approach to the 834 complex. I know that the State
Water Resources Control Board has come out in support of that concept.
Responses:
DOE/LLNL, U.S. EPA, RWQCB, and DTSC agree that the development, testing, and
evaluation of innovative technologies have several advantages. Innovative technology testing at
Building 834 may expedite remediation, and the successful new technologies could be valuable
to other sites, especially where public exposure risks are a greater issue.
Comment 9:
Criteria should be established by which to judge whether to go ahead with an innovative
technology after a treatability study. That criteria should be set forth in the FS, and/or other
appropriate documents, in case a new technology has only partial success.
Response 9:
Criteria for evaluating a remedial alternative will be established during the treatability study
for each technology being tested.
The effectiveness of new technologies will only be known after the technologies have been
implemented in the field and their effects are monitored. The remedy selected will be optimized
3-5
-------
VCRL-AR-119791 Inierim ROD for the Building 834 Operable Unit. Site 300 1995
as monitoring data warrants, to make sure that the remediation is conducted as effectively and
quickly as possible.
Comment 10:
Referring to Appendix E (of the FS), discussion of resin adsorption-regenerationalthough
this technology has theoretical advantages for treating off-gas from soil vapor extraction, tests
of the Purus Padre system at McClellan AFB have been disappointing. The Air Force is thinking
ofretesting an improved version at AF Plant 44 in Tucson, Arizona. I strongly recommend that
the Lab investigates the McClellan results (contact Bud Hoda) before it invests in this
technology.
Response 10:
LLNL's initial efforts to reach Bud Hoda were unsuccessful. However, LLNL has already
investigated resin-adsorption regeneration and believes that it is an appropriate and effective
technology. If DOE/LLNL proposes to apply this remedial technology at Building 834, LLNL
will carefully review its application at other sites and modify the system, if necessary, to
optimize its effectiveness.
3.2.2. Protection of the Environment
Comment 11:
We are concerned that there is not sufficient information to state- with certainty that the
regional aquifer has not been contaminated.
Response 11:
Since studies began at the Building 834 Complex in 1982, 13 exploratory boreholes have
been drilled, and 48 ground water monitoring wells have been installed. Hydraulic tests have
been performed on wells in the Building 834 Complex to determine the hydraulic characteristics
of the hydrologic units and to define hydrostratigraphic relationships. For example, neutron
logging of several deep monitor wells has indicated that the 280 ft of bedrock between the
perched zone and the regional aquifer is unsaturated. The results of these tests are summarized
in the PS.
DOE/LLNL, U.S. EPA, RWQCB, and DISC agree that information gathered during site
investigations supports the conclusion that the TCE plume in the perched water-bearing zone has
not contaminated the regional aquifer.
However, if high concentrations of contaminants are to remain in the perched water-bearing
zone, evidence of the impermeable nature of the perching horizon and lack of hydraulic
communication with the regional aquifer will need to be cited in the proposed Basin Plan
Amendment. Remediation decisions regarding the perched ground water will be included in the
Final ROD to the Building 834 OU.
Comment 12:
Referring to page EX-5, please explain in detail how the results of this -FS do not have
adverse effects in the context ofNEPA. Opportunities for on-site and nearby off-site activities
will be foreclosed by adoption of the proposed cleanup standard (based on industrial use
scenario).
Response 12:
The purpose of the FS was to develop and evaluate alternatives for remedial action at the
Building 834 OU in accordance with CERCLA/SARA and the National Environmental Policy
Act (NEPA). Specifically, Chapter 6 of the Building 834 FS provides a detailed NEPA
evaluation of potential impacts on the existing on-site and off-site environment due to
3-6
-------
UCRL-AR-119791 Interim ROD for the Building 834 Operable Unit. Site 300 7995
implementation of the remedial alternative. No significant adverse impacts due to
implementation of the alternatives were identified.
Comment 13:
In many Superfund cleanups, a principal is established that does not permit drawing
contaminated ground water through less contaminated soil or ground water. We recommend
this principal be adopted at Site 300.
Response 13:
The selected remedy does not involve drawing contaminated ground water through less
contaminated soil or ground water. We agree that the principal mentioned in the comment is
sound practice. ,
3.2.3. Impact of Future Activities
Comment 14:
We are concerned about the potential for additional contamination stemming, from some
current and future activities proposed at LLNL's Site 300, such as:
Increased hydrotesting activities (implosion of bomb cores using surrogates for
plutonium such as uranium 238, and possibly involving tritium as well)
Increased high explosives manufacturing activities
The possibility that Site 300 will be chosen as the nuclear weapons complex's mixed
waste dump site.
Response 14:
These issues are beyond the scope of remediation at the Building 834 OU.
Comment 15:
It is reasonable to assume that Building 834, and/or Us associated buildings, will be
demolished at some future date (perhaps to be replaced by an industrial building). We would
like to see included in the risk-based standard such factors as demolition, disposal of soil and
demolition debris, and the effects of soil/vapor exposure on demolition and construction workers.
Response IS:
\
If ULNL decides to demolish buildings at the Building 834 complex, the risks associated with
demolition, disposal of soil and demolition debris, and the effects of soil/vapor exposure on
demolition and construction workers will be evaluated. After completing a risk assessment, a
site safety plan would be written that would summarize site hazards and establish the levels of
personal protective equipment required for demolition and construction workers. LLNL's
decommissioning and decontamination activities take place under strict operating procedures
which ensure that soil and building debris will be decontaminated and disposed of properly.
3.2.4. Community Relations
Comment 16:
We, the public, have the right to monitor the cleanup. The environment does not belong to
the Department of Energy. It belongs to us and our children for seven generations into the
future.
3-7
-------
UCRL-AR-119791 Interim ROD for the Building 834 Operable Unit. Site 300 1995
Response 16:
DOE/LLNL is committed to providing opportunities for community involvement in the
project. The community will be able to monitor and participate in the cleanup process.
Comment 17:
I think we're concerned because there has been a tendency to discount or to indicate to the
public that there is no need to be concerned. So many times yet we know that there has and
this is in many cases, there's a difference of opinion among qualified scientific authorities,
whether a low level of radiation, for example, is a hazard or not.
Response 17:
Cleanup standards for the Building 834 OU will be based on the best available scientific data,
and will meet or exceed environmental and public protection standards. The 250 ppmv/v IS VRL
was developed by modeling potential TCE vapor inhalation risk. This vapor concentration
correlates to a soil concentration of 2.2 mg/kg and an HI of 1. The regulatory agencies concur
with the ISVRL.
We have no evidence that radioactive materials have been released to the environment at the
Building 834 OU.
3.2.15. General Comments
Comment 18:
Tri-Valley CAREs has three over-arching goals in terms of monitoring and participating in
decision making in the Site 300 cleanup.
One is to ensure the most thorough cleanup possible. Secondly, to ensure that the
technologies that are chosen to clean up the site are themselves protective of human health and
the environment. And third to facilitate public involvement in decision making in all aspects of
the cleanup.
1 really appreciate over the last couple of weeks that the Laboratory has done briefings for
our organization. We recently received the technical assistance grant to help get us up to speed
quickly on this aspect of the cleanup, and a public meeting was coming down the pipe almost
immediately.
And it is unfortunate that this public meeting is not only the same day as the State of the.
Union address, but also the same day as the public meeting 15 miles 'away on another laboratory
matter which is also important to the public. I do understand that you folks chose the date first,
and I will put that on the record.
Response IS:
Comments noted.
*
Comment 19:
The Department of Energy must commit in writing to provide adequate, stable, long-term
funding for this cleanup.
Parenthetically, because the Lawrence Livermore Lab is a Department of Energy facility,
cleanup funds must come directly from the Department of Energy, not the Environmental
Protection Agency's Superfund account. The Department of Energy has a history of moving
money from its cleanup accounts into its weapons programs.
3-8
-------
UCRL-AR-119791 Interim ROD for the Building 834 Operable Unit. Site 300 1995
Response 19:
DOE cannot legally commit to funding cleanup or any other activities beyond the current
budget year appropriation. However, DOE places a high priority on risk reduction, compliance,
and associated contamination cleanup in its annual budget submittals. DOE understands that
cleanup delays will likely increase the overall cost of the cleanup at LLNL as well as other
facilities, so it is in DOE's best interest to support an adequately funded and progressive cleanup
effort through its annual Congressional budget request each year. DOE does commit to request
from Congress through the Office of Management and Budget funding necessary to control and
remediate contaminant plumes, both on and off site. In addition, DOE is also committed to
removing contaminants as efficiently as possible using available technologies within budgeting
allocations.
DOE is not currently authorized to establish special funds for specific projects such as
environmental restoration. The comment is correct mat cleanup funds for the Building 834 OU
are' from DOE, not the Superfund account. Congress is the only government body that can
approve reprogramming and appropriation transfers between weapons design, production,, and
testing work (as well as other program work) and environmental restoration work. If such a
transfer should occur, it is DOE's responsibility to ensure that compliance with environmental
regulations is maintained, or that funding be reallocated within available funds, or to request
supplemental funding from Congress, if necessary.
3-9
-------
UCRL-AR-119791 Interim ROD for the Building 834 Operable Unit. Site 300 1995
References
Anspaugh, L. R., J. H. Shinn, P. L. Phelps, and N. C. Kennedy (1975), "Resuspension and
Redistribution of Plutonium in Soils," Health Phys. 29.
California Environmental Protection Agency (Cal-EPA) (1992) memorandum from Standards
and Criteria Work Group to California EPA Departments, Boards, and Offices regarding
California Cancer Potency Factors, June 18.
Hwang, S. T., J. W. Falco, and C. H. Nauman (1986), Development of Advisory Levels for
Poly chlorinated Biphenyls (PCBs) Cleanup, Office of Health and Environmental
.Assessment, Exposure Assessment Group, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
- Washington, D.C. (PB86-232774).
In-Situ, Inc. (1986), PLUME Contaminant Migration, Laramie, Wyoming (ISI-PLM-2.1-1).
Landgraf, R., E. Miner, and T. Berry (1994), Final Feasibility Study for the Building 834
Operable Unit Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory Site 300, Lawrence Livermore
National Laboratory, Livermore, Calif. (UCRL-AR-113863).
Matthews, S. M., A. J. Boegel, D. W. Camp, A. Caufield, J. O. Cunningham, P. F. Daley, J. J.
Greci, M. C. Jovanovich, J. A. Loftis, and P. D. Soran (1992), "Remediation of'a TCE
Ground Spill Using an Electron Accelerator, " Proceedings, Nuclear and Hazardous Waste
Management, Spectrum '92, August 23-27,1992, Boise, Idaho.
McKone, T. E. (1992), Environmental Engineer, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory,
Livermore, California., personal communication with Linda Hall.
U.S. EPA (1989a), Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund, Vol. !: Human Health Evaluation
Manual, Interim Final, Office of Emergency and Remedial Response, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Washington, D.C. (EPA/540/1-89/002).
U.S. EPA (1989b), Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund, Vol. H: Environmental Evaluation
Manual, Interim Final, Office of Emergency and Remedial Response, U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, Washington, D.C. (EPA/540/1-89/001).
U.S. EPA (1990a), Exposure Factors Handbook, Office of Health and Environmental
Assessment, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C. (EPA 600-8-89-043).
U.S. EPA (1990b), "National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan, Final
Rule," U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C. (40 CFR Pan 300), Fed.
Regist. 55(46), pp. 8666-8865.
U.S. EPA (1991 a), Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund, Vol. I: Human Health Evaluation
Manual, Supplemental Guidance"Standard Default Exposure Factors," Interim Final,
Office of Emergency and Remedial Response, Toxics Integration Branch,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C. (OSWER Directive: 9285.6-03).
R-l
-------
VCRL-AR-119791 Interim ROD for the Building 834 Operable Unit. Site 300 1995
U.S. EPA (I991b), Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund, Vol. I: Human Health Evaluation
Manual, (Part B, Development of Risk-based Preliminary Remediation Goals) Interim,
Office of Emergency and Remedial Response, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Washington, D.C. (OSWER Directive: 9285.7-01B).
U.S. EPA (1992a), Dermal Exposure Assessment: Principles and Applications, Interim Report,
Exposure Assessment Group, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C.
(EPA/600/8-91/01 IB).
U.S. EPA (1992b), Health Effects Assessment Summary Tables, FY-1992 Annual, Office of
Research and Development, Office of Emergency and Remedial Response,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C. (OHEA ECAO-CIN-821).
U.S. EPA (1992c), Health Effects Summary Tables, Supplement No. 2 to the March 1992 Annual
Update, Office of Research and Development, Office of Emergency and Remedial Response,
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C. (OERR 9200.6-303 (92-3).
U.S. EPA (1992d), Integrated Risk Information SystemIRIS, an electronic database maintained
by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Research and Development,
Environmental Criteria and Assessment Office, Cincinnati, Ohio.
U.S. EPA (1993), memorandum from D. Stralka, Ph.D., U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Region DC, to L. Tan, Remedial Project Manager, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency,
Region DC. regarding a "Technical request from Linda Hall at Lawrence Livermore National
Lab" for toxicity values for PCE, TCE, and tetrahydrofuran, February 25.
U.S. EPA (1994), memorandum from Stanford J. Smucker, Technical Support Section of
U.S. EPA regarding Region DC Preliminary Remediation Goals (PRGs) Second Half 1994,
August 1.
Webster-Scholten, C. P., Ed. (1.994), Final Site-Wide Remedial Investigation Report, Lawrence
Livermore National Laboratory Site 300, Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory,
Livermore, Calif. (UCRL-AR-21010).
R-2
-------
0 5 10 15 20
Kilometers
ERD-ROD-834-3319
Figure 1. Locations of LLNL Main Site and Site 300.
-------
General Services Area
Operable Unit
Building 811
Operable Unit
eHMt004M.ua
Figure 2. Operable Units and SWRI Study Areas at LLNL Site 300.
|^| Operable Units (OUs)
General Services Area (GSA) Operable Unit (OU-1)
Operable Unit addresses environmental conlamlnallon resulting from past solvent
disposal In the area, causing VOC contamination ol soil, bedrock, and ground water.
Two primary ground water plumes have been Identified, both extending oflsite.
CERCLA removal actions are ongoing to remediate both plumes, and two water-
supply wells have been sealed to prevent vertical contaminant migration. Further
characterization Is being conducted.
Building 834 Operable Unit (OU-2)
Operable Unit addresses environmental contamination from chemical releases at the
core ol the Building 634 Complex. Past spills ol TCE, which was used as a heat
exchange fluid, have resulted in VOC (primarily TCE) contamination of sol), bedrock,
and ground water In the perched water-bearing zone. Minor tetra 2-
ethylbutylorlhoslIlcatB (T-BOS) and dlasel fuel contamination are also present. Interim
soil vapor and ground water extraction are ongoing as a CERCLA removal action.
Pit 6 Operable Unit (OU-3)
Operable Unll addresses environmental contamination from chemicals released from
the pit 6 waste burial trenches, which were used In the past lo dispose of malarial from
Lawrence Berkeley Laboratory end LLNL Main Site. Although a variety ol wastes were
buried at pit 6. only VOCs have migrated beyond the pit boundaries. No remedial
actions have been conducted except for surface drains and placement of a
compacted native soil cover.
HE Process Area Building 81S Operable Unit (OU-4)
Operable Unit addresses environmental contamination horn past TCE spDIs In the
Building 815 area, where this solvent was used to dean scale from boilers. Low
concentrations of the high explosive compounds RDX and HMX are also present.
Interim remedial actions Include the seating/abandonment ol two water-supply wells.
Further characterization Is planned lor FY94-95.
Building BSD/Pits 3 a. 5 Operable Unll (OU-S)
Operable Unit addresses environmental contamination emanating from landfill pits 3
and 5, and from the Building 650 firing table. Tritium Is the primary contaminant in
ground water, although TCE Is also present downgradlent of pit 5. Interim remedial
actions Include removal ol (he firing table gravels and placement of a compacted
native son cover en oils 3 and 5,
Building 832 Canyon Operable Unll (OU-6)
The Building 832 Canyon Operable Unit addresses TCE contamination detected
In spring 3. TCE has been used at several facilities In the area, primarily as a
heat exchange fluid. Reid activities are planned for FY95. and will Include
source Investigations at Building 830,63t. and 832.
Sltewlde Monitoring Operable Unit (OU-7) (not shown)
The Silewlde Monitoring Operable Unit Includes sites where minor releases may
have occurred, but no unacceptable risks to human health or the environment are
present This OU includes surveillance monitoring of Site 300 and offslte water-
supply and monitor wads not Included as part of other Operable Units.
| | Unaaslgned Sites
Unasstgned sites are defined as areas where source screening Indicates that releases
may have occurred, but further investigation is required to determine if risk to human
health or the environment is present. Currently unassigned sites include the Sandia
Test Facility, and Building 612.823,829.840.841 and 854.
-------
Decommissioned
septic system
/ leach field
Legend
Control building
TCE pumping station
TCE pumping station, storage tanks
TCE pumping station
Thermal soaking and shocking test cell
Special conditioning test cell
Thermal cycling and soaking test cell
Thermal cycling and soaking test cell
Thermal cycling with humidity control test cell
Storage
Hot soaking test cell
Thermal soaking test cell
Overflow office space
i I Building
Core area
Scale : feet
0 75 150
ERD-ROO-834-3320
Figure 3. Functions of the buildings at the Building 834 operable unit.
-------
Discharge by
evapotranspiration
Local recharge
Ground water discharge by
evapotranspiration
Rainfall interception
by vegetation
ERDROO834 3321
Figure 4. Conceptual hydrogeologlc model of the Building 834 operable unit.
-------
76.000
W-834-S1
4-45,000
T W-834-T2
8.900
W-834.S8
100
Legend
Ground water sample from the
Qt-Tpsg hydrologic
unit with TCE in jig/L
Ground water sample from the
Qt-Tpsg/ Tps-Tnsc2 hydrologic
unit with TCE in jig/L
Ground water sample from the
Tps-TnsCj hydrologic
unit with TCE in jig/L,
not contoured
Indicates ground water
sample was collected in
September 1991
Inferred TCE isoconcentration
contour in (ig/L, dashed
where uncertain, queried
where unknown
Estimated lateral extent of
saturation of Qt-Tpsg and Tps-
Tnsc2 hydrologic units
Scale : feet
0 ISO 300
98,000* W-834-014\
7,200* W-834-D11N
53,000* W-S34-D7\
50,000 W-4
W-834-D3 220,000*
w-834-04 350,000*
100,000
- W-834-H2 84,000*
21 W-834-T4B
1,100 W-834-T4A
33,000 W-83*T4
S
64,000 W-834-T4C
Sppb
MCL
r
-------
200-20,000 mg/kg
2.0-200 mg/kg
e 0.02-2.0 mg/kg
O 0.0002-0.02 mg/kg
o ND (not detected at or
above detection limit)
8.21 Depth of soil
sample collection
* Sample location is
approximate; coordinates
are not available. Area
excavated on 10/21/82
Concentration in mg/kg
Scale : feet
0 150 300
( )
ND(<0.0002)M34«nN
ND (<0.0002) M34L-02, \
(9.8) 7.8' 834*1 v \ \
(12,000) 3JJ'834^*,
(1.8) 10.1'W-834«3X
(0.524) 10.3'834^1
834-Q1 (0278) 3.7
834-02(0.12)4.6'
(0.015) 1^'
ND(<0.05)894-E1
(0.006)8.3'
W-834^2
(0.0013) 10.5' w-SM-ou
(0.17)6.0'W-834^)10
(0.046) 6.0'W^Wll
(0.071) 5.0'W434-08
ND(<0.2)VM34«
(0.039) 5.0 W-834-D7
LL-834-01 (0.27)
ND (<0.05) W^34^1
(0.011) 8.5' W-834-S9
(0.19) 0.0'JH-834-S1©
.05)6.0'
*W012
LL-834-02 (0 J)
(0.012) 7.0' TW34-110
(0.023) 2.0'
(0.0023) 5J?TP-834-1BO
(0.0012) 6.5'
(0.0002) 10.3'
W-834-T2A
(0.0013)5.3-1^/^^0
ND (<0.0002) o
W-834-T4C
o ND (<0.0002)
W-834-T7
0ND(<0.01)
W-834-T6
83441(257.5)8.1'
4411(0.123)4.0'
W-834-D3 (0.7) 10.0'
W-834-O4 (0.4)5.4'
W-83401 (2.7) 10.6*
W-834-J2 (0.26) 10.5'
ND (<0.001)
W-834-U2
ND(<0.001)
W-834-S5
ND (<0.0002)
°W-«34-S7
EHD-ROO-834-3323
Figure 6. Maximum TCE concentration, 0 to 12 ft, in soil and rock samples in the Building 834
operable unit.
-------
o
o
7.8'
Legend
200-20,000 mg/kg
2.0-200 mg/kg
0.02-2.0 mg/kg
0.0002-0.02 mg/kg
ND (not detected at or
above detection limit)
Depth of sample
collection
Sample location is
approximate; coordinates
are not available. Area
excavated on 10/21/82
(257.5) 8.1'
w-834-03 (970)292'
834-H1 (0.123) 4.0'
WMB4-H2 (0.85) 25.8'
83409(0.085)31'
W-8344M (1.0)25.5'
W-834J1 (52.0) 16.0'
W-S34-J2 (0.26) 10.5'
ND (<0.0002)
ND (<0.0002) W34L
(1 2,000) 3.2*34X*
834-G1A(0.278) 3.r
834-02(0.12)4.6'
(13.1) 20.5- 834-B1A
(4.3) 15.51
(0.32) 30.7* 83*£i
(4.0) 25.5' W4344S
(0.78) 29.0' W-834-D14
(1.1) 23.5' W-634-010
(0.46) 6.0' W-834-011
(140) 20.0' W-834-08
Concentration in mg/kg
Scale : feet
0 150 300
(0.1) 30.0'W-834-07
(2.8) 35.6'W-834-S1
(0.89) 33.5'W-834-S9
W-834-013
(0.1)40.5'
W-834-D9A
;o.os) 6.0*
W-834H712
ND (<0.001)
W4344IQ
ND (<0.0002)
°W-«34-S7
oND(<0.0002)
834-T6
ERD-ROD4M-3324
Figure 7. Maximum TCE concentration in soil and rock samples in the Building 834 operable unit.
-------
C01
-120
-),JOO
007
-«
-144*
-7M'
/
L«fl«nd
Dedicated tall vapor
point location
$ 801 Nondadlcatad loll vapor
point location
m Building
» TCE concanlratlon In loll
vapor (ppm,/,), dmotaa
av«rag« of two or rnora
aampln
Below toll vapor dttwtlon
llmll
Seal* : !!
o to too
NO
ERO-fKXW-3325
Figure 8. Vertical distribution ol TCE In soil vapor at the Building 834 operable unit (ppmv/v).
-------
Soil vapor
from
extraction wells
Moisture
accumulator
^
Air
ItAotAr
Fixed bed
GAC
adsorption
units
foT
y*-v
A-A
Vacuum
hlnuuar
Treated air
discharge
ERD ROD 834 3328
Figure 9. Soil vapor treatment system.
-------
Is \
Total fluids
from )
extraction wells /
V
Phase
separator
Ground
water ^
Transfer
drum
LA
Low profile tray
air stripper unit
Air Inlet
Vapor-phase GAC
adsorption units
(2 In series)
Air blower
Treated
air discharge
Storage
tank
t
~&r
Discharge
pump
Alr-mlstlng
array
Treated water
mist discharge
Aqueous-phase
GAC adsorption
units (2 In'series)
Transfer
pump
EHD.ROO-e34.3327
Figure 10. Air stripper with aqueous-phase and vapor-phase GAC.
-------
4 5a
Alternatives
5b
6c
5d
Legend
Costs
Alternatives
Contingency
Lab taxes
'A
Illl Monitoring cost
O&M
1 No action
2 Inhalation exposure controls, LNAPL
recovery, and drainage control
4 Source mass removal by SVE with dewaterlng and by
LNAPL recovery, and drainage control
5a, b, c, d
Source mass removal by SVE with dewaterlng and LNAPL
recovery, downgradient dewaterlng, and drainage control
I _ I
3 Source mass removal by SVE and
LNAPL recovery, and drainage control
Capital costs
ERD ROD-834-3328
a = 5 yr dewaterlng
b = 10 yr dewatering
c = 20 yr dewaterlng
d = 30 yr dewatering
Alternative 6: cost not available for innovative technology. BAT SVE costs would be similar to
Alternative 3 or 4 If the Basin Plan is amended and similar to Alternative 5 if the Plan is not amended.
Figure 11. Building 834 remedial alternative cost summary chart
-------
UCRL-AR-119791 Interim ROD for the Building 834 Operable Unit, Site 300 1995
i
\
Tables
-------
VCRL-AR-119791 Interim ROD for the Building 834 Operable Unit. Site 300 1995
Table 1. Contaminants of potential concern in ground water in the Building 834 operable
unit.6
Contaminant
1, 1, 1-Tiichloroethane
1, 1-Dichloroethylene
cis-l,2-Dichloroethylenec
Acetone
Benzene
Chloroform
Ethylbenzene
Methylene chloride
Tetrachloroethylene
Toluene
Trichloroethylene
Trichlorotrifluoroe thane
Xylenes (total isomers)
Maximum
concentration
jig/L (ppb)
33x10*
9.0 xlO2
5.4 xlO5
5.5xl0ld
1.4xl0ld
93 xlO2
2.1 xlO1
5.1 xlO3
63 xlO3
62 xlO1
5.1 xlO5
13 xlO3
4Xxl0ld
Mean
concentration9
3J02X103
2.10 xlO1
1.62 xlO4
NAd
NAd
331 xlO1
4.59x10°
2.02 xlO2
430X102
2.13 xlO1
138 xlO5
237 xlO1
NAd
95% UCLb
jig/L (ppb)
L87X104
8.47 xlO1
1.41 xlO5
.5.5 xlO1*1
1.4 x 10ld
1.06 xlO2
1.27 xlO1
2.50 xlO2
9.08 xlO2
5.65 xlO1
1.90 x 105
3.60 xlO2
4.0xl0ld
* Estimate of the arithmetic mean of'the underlying log-normal distribution.
b UCL-upper confidence limit
c The chemical 1,2-dichloroethylene (1,2-DCE) exists as two isomers, cis-X2-DCE and trans-l^-DCE. At various
times throughout the 9 yean of ground water analysis at Site 300, this chemical has been analyzed for as
1^-DCE (total), as one or both of the specific isomers, or as all three. When concentration data were available
for one or both isomers, we used those values and omitted the less specific analysis for 1,2-DCE (total) from
further consideration. The exceptions to this were in cases where the concentration reported for 1,2-DCE (total)
was greater than that reported for one or both isomers.
d This contaminant has only been detected a single time; consequently, neither a mean concentration nor a 95%
UCL were calculated. The concentration detected is given for the maximum concentration and the 95% UCL.
NA = not applicable.
e Analytical data originally presented in the SWRI report (data prior to December 31,1991).
T-l
-------
UCRL-AR-119791 Interim ROD for the Building 834 Operable Unit. Site 300 1995
Table 2. Contaminants of potential concern in surface soil (0-0.5 ft) in the Building 834
operable unit.
Contaminant
Acetone
Cadmium
Trichloroethylene
Trichlorofluoromethane
Trichlorotrifluoroe thane
Xylenes (total isomers)
Maximum
concentration
7.0x10-2
1.6 xlO1
1.9 XMT1
2.1x10-2
9.5x10-2
5.0 xlO-3
Mean
concentration*
3^1x10-2
NAC
259x10-2
534 xlO-3
1.49x10-2
2*6 xlO-3
95% UCLb
mg/kg (ppm)
5.63x10-2
L6xl0lc
7.03x10-2
1.28x10-2
3.66x10-2
355 xlO-3
a Estimate of the arithmetic mean of the underlying fog-normal distribution.
b UCL supper confidence limit
c Because mere was only a single sample and a single detection of this substance, a 95% UCL could not be
calculated. The value given is the only measured concentration. NA = parameter not applicable.
Table 3. Contaminants of potential concern in subsurface soil (>0.5-12.0 ft) at Building 834D.
Contaminant
Benzene
Ethylbenzene
Tetrachloroethylene
Toluene
Trichloroethylene
Trichlorofluoromethane '
Xylenes (total isomers)
Maximum
concentration
mg/kg (ppm)
ZOxlO-*
L3xl(T3
1.4 xlO1
l^xKT30
Z6X102
2.0 xlO"1
1.7x10-2
Mean concentration3
NAC
2.55 x HP*
5.95 xlO-1
NAC
Z74X101
3.21x10-2
4.93 xlO~3
95% UCLb
mg/kg (ppm)
ZOOxlO-^
6.16 xKT4
1.44x10°
IJWxlO-36
4.76 xlO1
1.45x10-2
a Estimate of the arithmetic mean of the underlying log-normal distribution.
b UCL supper confidence limit
c No statistical calculations were made for this substance. The value given is the maximum measured
concentration. NA = parameter not applicable.
T-2
-------
VCRL-AR-119791
Interim ROD for the Building 834 Operable Unit. Site 300
1995
Table 4. Compounds other than TCE reported in borehole soil .and rock samples from the
Building 834 operable unit
Chemical
Tetrachloroethylene
(PCI)
1,1-Dichloroethylene
(1,1-DCE)
1,2-Dichloroethylene
(1,2-DCE) (Total)
1,14-Trichloroethane
(1,1,1-TCA)
Trichlorofluoromethane
(Freonll)
Trichlorotrifluoroethane
(Freon'113)
Dibromochloromethane
Ethylbenzene
Benzene
Toluene
Xylene isomers
Total petroleum
hydrocarbons
Chloroform
Carbon tetrachloride
Methylene chloride
HMX
RDX
Maximum
concentration
detected in
rag/kg (ppm)
14
00)037
00)17
00)004
0.2
00)04
00)004
00)035 '
00)013
00)52
00)17
100
00)24
0.0009
00)028
0.0002
00)2
No. of detections
Perched
zone
30
2
.
17
0
4
10
1
13
11
18
13
0
11
0
3
0
0
Perching
horizon
11
3
3
2
1
0
0
1
3
4
3
1
8
1
0
1
2
Neroly
upper Neroly
sandstone aquitard
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
%
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
" 0
0
1
0
0
Neroly
lower
sandstone
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
T-3
-------
UCRL-AR-119791 Interim ROD for the Building 834 Operable Unit. Site 300 1995
Table 5. Maximum concentrations of TCE encountered in soil vapor at the Building 834
operable unit.
Sample location
SVS-834-B01
SVS-834-B02
SVS-834-C01
SVS-834-D01
SVS-834-D02
SVS-834-D03
SVS-834-D04
SVS-834-D05
SVS-834-D06
SVS-834-D07
SVS-834-D08
SVS-834-F01
SVS-834-G01
SVS-834-H01
SVS-834-H02
SVS-834-J01
SVS-834-J02
SVS-834-M01
Depth
(ft)
10.2
11.8
113
6.0
12.6
16^
16.4
15.5
15.0
3.0
20JO
9.4
143
14.7
, 13.7
10.0
14.7
19.2
Maximum TCE concentration
(ppmv/v)
3,800 and 2/OOOa
WOO and 1,700*
6,600 and 6/4003
45 and 43*
1,200 and 1,200*
310 and 3109s
1300 and 1,000*
270 and 160"
510
97
6300 and 6,500*
16
25
7
6300
4
>700
3.19
Notes:
a One of these concentrations is a duplicate sample result
1. A general increase occurred in the concentration of TCE soil vapor with depth in each borehole (Webster-
Sdiolten, 1994). In only 7 out of 22 sampling locations was there a deviation from this pattern. (Every sample
was lower in concentration than those collected beneath it.)
2. In only 1 sampling location out of 22 was the maximum concentration at a depth of less than 5 ft. This occurred
at location SVS-834-D07, about 18 ft to the northeast of pump station Building 834D. The concentration at a
depth of 3 ft was 96.8 ppnty/y (v/v = on a volume-per-volume basis).
3. The overall maximum concentrations at a depth of less than 5 ft were as follows: 120 ppmv/v at 3.5-ft depth,
SVS-834-C01, about 10 ft to the southeast of pump station Building 834C; 96.8 ppmv/v at 3-ft depth, SVS-834-
D07; and 6Z6 ppmv/y at 3-ft depth, SVS-834-B01, about 15 ft to the north of pump station Building 834B.
4. At 6 out of 22 sampling locations, the maximum concentrations were at depths of from 5.1 to 12 ft These are:
SVS-834-B01, SVS-834-B02, SVS-834-C01, SVS-834-D01, and S VS-834-J01.
5. The overall maximum concentrations considering all depths were adjacent to pump station Buildings 834C and
D, and about 18 ft west of test cell 834H.
6. The second highest overall maxima at any depth were at pump station Buildings 834B, C, and D.
7. Although concentrations tend to increase with depth, the increases are not identical. Similar sample depths in
adjacent sample locations do not necessarily have similar concentrations. The lateral variability in the
magnitude of soil vapor concentrations is attributed to the variability in lithologic and moisture content of the
perched zone.
8. It is inferred that two mechanisms may be exerting control on the distribution of TCE in soil vapor at the core of
the Building 834 operable unit: (1) diffusion of TCE vapor from the upper surface of the TCE plume in ground
water; and (2) the "settling" of TCE in soil vapor onto a less permeable surface (in this case the
unsaturated/saturated soil interface), due to the density of TCE vapor relative to air.
T-4
-------
UCRL-AR-119791
lattrlm ROD for the Building 834 Opiiablt Unit. Site 300
199}
Table 6. Summary of the fale and transport models applied to estimate human exposure-point concentrations In the Building 834 operable unit.
Media/process release areats)
Model and/or method
Potential exposure polnKs)
Chemicals of concern
Maximum concentration
at release area(s)
93%UCL
Estimated exposure-point
concentrations
Fugitive (airborne) dust; contaminants bound to resuif ended soil particles
Data evaluated are from surface
oil umples collected
throughout the study area.
Direct contact with
surface soil <
-------
VCRL-AR-1 19791
Table 6. (Continued)
Media/process release area(s) Model and/or method
Interim ROD for the Building 834 Operator Unit, Slit 300
Potential exposure polnt(s)
Minimum concentration
Chemical) of concern at release «rea(»)
I99S
Estfmated exposure-point
95% UCL concentration*
Soil/rock and ground water
Core of the Building 834 Perched zone; VLEACH Well CDF-1, completed In the
Complex. (U.S. EPA, 1981). regional aquifer, 4,100 ft down-
gradient from the Building 834
Complex and outside the Site 300
boundary.
Regional aquifer; PLUME Well CDF-1, completed In the
(In-Slhi, Inc. I98t). regional aquifer, 4,100 ft down-
gradient from the Building 834
Complex and outside the Site 300
boundary.
Primarily TCE; co-contamln- 310,000 ugrt. TCE'
ants detected In ground
water samples In the study
area also considered.
These Include: 1,1 -DCE,
cls-l,2-DCE,U,l-TCA,
acetone, benzene,
chloroform, ethyl benzene.
methylene chloride, PCE,
toluene, Freon 113, and
xylenes (total Isomers).
1,1,1-TCA, chloroform, 3.5u*/L'
methylene chloride, PCE,
toluene, Freon 113, and TCE.
Assumed source
term for VLEACH
Is 1,100 mg/L
(ppm) TCE
Assumed source
term for FLUME Is
all detected VOC
concentrations
from regional
aquifer wells:
W-834-T1,
W-834-T3,and
W-831-01
These were treated
as Instantaneous
point source*.
LixuHug/LTCB
(01 *uf tin tun
concentration
contributed from
perched zone).
Maximum 70-year
avenge TCE
concentration predicted
In well CDF-1 from the
perched zone is
MX 10-* mg/L.
Concentration* of co-
contaminant* from the
perched zone In the
range of 10~* to
10-*mg/L.
Concentrations of VOCs
predicted to arrive at
CDF-1 from regional
aquifer well* W-031-01,
W-834-T1, and W-834-T3
range from 10-" to IfT11
mg/L (ppb).
The exposure-point
concentrations In
ground water
withdrawn from CDF-1.
Surface soil (0-0.5 ft).
b Air.
c Subsurface sol) (0.5-110 fl).
d Indoor air.
c Ouldooralr.
' Ground waler.
T-6
-------
UCRL-AR--119791
Inlfrim ROD for the Building 834 Optntlc Unit, Site 300
1995
Table 7. '
unit (adult on-slte exposure).
tally of Building 834D In the Building 834 operable
Chemical
Benzene
Elhylbeniene
TelracRloroelhylene
Toluene
Trlchlohwlhylene
Trichlorofluoromtlhane
Xylenes
C.(,b,>
141E-07
1.05E-06
1.60E-03
Z92E-06
5.ME-02
1.07E-03
138E-05
Slope factor for rt«k (R)
(l/hngftkg'dll
l.OOE-01
Not carcinogenic
3.10E-01
Not carcinogenic
l.OOE-02
Not carcinogenic
Not carcinogenic
Source of Information for
a lope factor*
State of Calif.
NA<
State of Calif.
NAd
Slate of Calif.
NAd
NAd
£Rlsk»
EXCCM Individual 70-year lifetime
cancer risk
2.42E-08
NAd
8.17E-05
'NAd
3.ME-04
NAd
NAd
6.40E-M
* C«UM '''"lo "" conccnlntlon (O of contaminant In air (a) (the upoum medium), which reraltt directly from Ihc prtxnct of ronlimlninl In tutnurfac* Mil PEP - pithwiy npoiun factor; Inh wpwnrt and/or doM (ram Inhalntlon.
' SUIiofCillf.nffnloCillfomlaEnrlronmfnUII'roltctlanAgtnryflm).
d NA - puimtlti not ippllciblt. . .
Table 8. Calculation of exceu Individual lifetime cancer risk attributable to Inhalation of VOCa that volalillte from loll Into the Indoor air of Building 834D In the Building 834 operable unit (adult on-slle exposure).
Chemical
Benzene
Ethylbenzene
Tetrachlorocthylene
Tolueno .
Trlchloroethylene
Trichlorofluoromelhine
Xylenea
CvoCMn)
(mgnn*)'
S.9J&06
5.62E-06
164E-02
2.03BOS
1.32EtOO
1.18E-02
1.U&04
PEFUnh)
Im'/Ocg.d))1'
6.99E-02
1.96E-01
6.WE-02
1.96E-01
6.WE-02
1.96E-01
1.96E-01
Dow(lnh)
|mg/(kg>d)|l>
4.14E-07
t.lOE-06
2.55E-03
3.98E-06
9.13BM
2.31E-03
2J9E-03
Slope factor for risk (R)
(Mmg/(kg.d)l)
l.OOE-01
Not carcinogenic
S.10E-02
Not carcinogenic
l.OOE-02
Not carcinogenic
Not carcinogenic
Source of Information for
lope factor1
Slate of Calif.
NAd
Stale of Calif.
NA<«
Slate of Calif.
NAd
NA<«
£Rlak-
Excest Individual 70-year lifetime
cancer risk
4.14E-08
NAd
1JOE-04
NAd
9J3E-04
NAd
NAd
1.05E-03
CyOCCsbi) nttn lo the concentration to California Environmental Protection Agency (1992).
4 NA parameter not applicable.
T-7
-------
Interim ROD fir Iht Building 8M Operable Unit, Sile 300
1995
Table 9. Calculation of excess individual III
exposure).
Chemical
Acetone
Cidmlum
Trichtoroethylene
Trichlorofluoromelhane
Trlchlorotrinuoroethane
XylenM
(lime cincer risk allributab
Cp(M>
bug/in*)1
l.ME-09
3.ME-07
1.62E-09
2.94E-10
6.42E-10
8.17E-11
le to Inhalation of pa
PEF(lnh)
1mV(kg»d)|b
1.96E-01
6.99E-02
6.99E-02
1.96E-01
1.96E-01
1.96E-01
rtlculates resuspend
Dose(inh)
Imgrtkg.d)!'
2.ME-10
2.S7E-OS
1.13E-10
5.76E-11
. 1.6SE-10
1.60E-11
led from contaminated surface
Slop* factor for risk (R)
(l/|mg/(kg«d)|)
Not carcinogenic
l.SOEtOl
l.OOE-02
Not carcinogenic
Not carcinogenic
Not carcinogenic
soil (0 to O.S ft) in the Building 834 opt
Route of administration basis for
slope factor1
NAd
Stale of Calif.
State of Calif.
NAd
NA-"
NAd
I Risk -
>rable unit (adull on-slle
Excess Individual 70-year lifetime
cancer risk
NAd
3.86E-07
1.13E-U
NAd
NA<>
NAd
3.86E-07
* Cp(ts) refers to tht concentration (Q of contaminant on rctnfpended partlculales In air (p) (the exposure medium), which mult* directly from Ihs preience of contaminant In surface soil (ss).
h FEF = pathway eiposure factor; Inh = exposure and/or do»« from Inhtlillon.
c State of Calif, refers to California Environmental Protection Agency (1991).
d NA parameter not applicable.
exposure).
Chemical
Acetone
Cadmium
Trichloroelhylene
Trlchlorofluoromethane
Trlchiorotrlfluoroelhane
Xylenes
C.(»)
(mg/kg»»
5.63E-OZ
1.ME401
7.03E-02
1.28E42
3.MB42
3.55E-03
FEF(lng)
|kg/(kg.d)|'>
4.89E^)7
1.74EW
1.74E^»
4.69E-07
4.89E-07
4.89E-07
Dose(lng)
Img/flcg-d)!''
2.75E4S
2.78E46
1.22E-08
6.15E-09
1.79E4»
1.74E-09
Slope factor for
risk(R)
(I/|mg/(kg'd)|)
Not carcinogenic
Not available
1.50E-02
Not carcinogenic
Not carcinogenic
Not carcinogenic
Source of
Information for
slope factor1
NA-»
Not available
State of Calif.
NAd
NAd
NAd
Ingesllon excess
Individual 70-year
lifetime cancer risk
NAd
Not available
1.84E-10
NAd
NAd
NAd
PEF(derm)
Ikf/ftg'd))"
5.93E-07
7.06E-08
ZUE07
S^E-O?
5.93E-07
5.WE-07
Dose(derm)
lmg/(kg*d)l<>
3.34E48
1.13E-46
1.49E-08
738E-09
2.17E-08
2.11E-09
Slope factor for
risk (R)
(l/lmg/(kg»d)|)
Not carcinogenic
Not available
1.ME-OT
Not carcinogenic
Not carcinogenic
Not carcinogenic
Source of
Information for
alope factor^
NAd
Not available
State of Calif.
NA-«
NAd
NAd
Dermal excess
Individual 70-
year lifetime
cancer risk
NAd
Not available
124E-10
NAd
NAd
NAd
£ Total risk -
Total excess
Individual 70-
year lifetime
cancer risk
NAd
Not available
4.07 E-tO
NAd
NA<<
NAd
4.07E-10
Qua) refers to the concentration
-------
VCItL-AR-119791
Inurlm ROD for ilu Building «M OftnMi Unit, Sill 300
Tibto II. CikuliHon ol nnn ln41«Uiul llfrltot CUICCT rilk llbflniUM* to mUentU) tm el conluibuhd pound wiln (nun Ihi BuIUIng «JI opiriblt unit Udull oinlte «potun >.
Mtri
KHtng) Dvt
74IB-H
Ml 841
.IB-It
1.778-W
4C1B-11
UI847
7JH-1I
1418-11
1478-11
IMS-It
7J784t
J7B-U
1418-11'
t47B4»
140841
lHt43
Sbtattf
HIAfT
NA'
HA*
NA<
NA'
1M8-14
NA*
NA*
N*cmfaot*nk
UUB« 1MC-14
NA' NA'
«Ut*W MIB-lt
c«nt
NA'
17484J
1.17841
17484]
11784J
1.17841
17484]
1.74842
1.17841
174841
MT84t
I41t-tt
T41fi.11
1.148-11
I.TJM>
«.fM-U
T.TM-U
4JTB-10
JV84S
USE-*
141841
4418-1I
IfSB-ll
1J4B-M
J4t-ll
1418-17
1JIS-14
4118-14
t.l 18-17
J4MJ
1418-11
. 141E-M
I.HB-lt
44*6-11
1.138-14
l.ttS-17
L11B-1*
t U48-17
IJfB-14
144144
IJ4844
1418-11
llflC-14
1418-11
4.14B-14
IJIB-10
MI8-1I
I47B-14
1438-14
4418-11
IJ1B-1J
t.178-13
1J1B-U
l.tlS-11
T44C-11
1.14S-U
144841
7,148-11
7JSB-1J
Netc«itlM«Mk
CtHtvl
OJ1/.
c>nf.
NA'
N«4cMriMS*nk
140841
. IJOB41
N«cwcliws«fik
NMcudMSMk
n
NA'
NA'
NA'
NA'
1418-14
1MB-1I
HA'
NA'
NA'
NA'
NA'
Ml 841
4J1844
7J7B-1I
IMS-It
Cltt-tl
I.M8-14
LUS-14
U4I-IB
4.4S8-11
1M8-W
lf18-U
41IB-1I
NA'.
IRIS
NA*
SUk*f
CM.
SUkW
NA*
Sutt*l
C4tU.
NA*
NA*
U48-I4
NA*
tJIB-lt
I44B-II
NA*
NA*
1.118-19
144 B-U
NA*
4418-11
NA'
NA'
NA'
L778-1t
NA*
4J7S-14
uoB-n
NA*
NA*
NA'
rtfliuBNwyTikta
tt »y MM UJ. «FA nmtfi Md 8>A RaflMi IX nttm to HM
m W * IntttnMd Rkk liUonmib«n S;
-------
UCRLAK-II979I
Interim ROD for the Building 834 Operable Unit. Slit 300
1995
Table 12. Calculation of noncancer hazard Index attributable to Inhalation of VOCs that volatilize from subsurface soil (>O.S to 12 ft) in the vicinity of Building 834D In the Building 834 operable unit (adult on-slte
exposure).
Chemical
Benzene
Elhylbenzene
Tetrachloroelhylene
Toluene
Trichlocoelhylene
Trichlocofluoiomethane
Xylene>
C.(sbj)
(roi/m'r1
M«E46
3J3&W
IMrMH
1.49E-OS
7.MB-01
M7E-03
U1E-04
PEF(lnh)
|mj«kg«d)|b
1.96E-01.
1.%E-01
1.96E-01
1.%E-01
1.96E-01
1.96E41
1.96E-01
Doselinh)
Img/lkg-dH
6.78E-O7
1.05E-06
4.49E-03
192E-06
l.ME-01
1.07E-03
2.38E-OS
Chronic Reference dose (RfO)
|mg/(kg«d)|
Not available
1.00E-01
1.00E-OJ
100E-01
7.35E-OJ
2.00E-01
lOOEtOO
Hazard quotient
(Dose/RfD)
Not available
1.05E-05
4.49E-01
1.46E-05
2.13E+01
5.36E-OJ
1.19E-OS
Source of Information
forRft*
Not available
IRIS
IRIS
1RJS
State of Calif.
HEAST
IRIS
Comments
Based on Rf D (Inh)
Hazard Index a 2.17E+01
' C»(sbs) refers lo the concentration (C) of contaminant In ilr M (the exposure medium), which i»ulls directly from Ihe preMncc of tonlimlnint In nibsurfact Mil (sbs).
^ Abbreviations are pathway exposure factor (PEF) and *lnh' lo Indicate exposure and/or dose from Inhalation.
' HEAST nltn to Ihe Health'Effects AsMnnwnt Summxy Ttbln published by Ihe U.S. EPA (l«92bx); SIMe of Calif, rchrs lo Cillfomli Envlronmenlal Protection Agency (1WJI; IRIS refers lo the Integrated Risk Infomnllon Syitcm, an on-line
database maintained by Ihe U.S. EPA (IWJdl.
Table 13.
Chemical
Benzene
Elhylbenzene
Tetrachloroelhylene
Trlchloroelhylene
Trichlorofluoromethane
Toluene
Xylenes
Cvocwbs)
(rflK/m )*
5.9JE-06
5.62E-06
3.ME-02
IJZEtOO
1.18E-02
103E-05
1.2JE-W
PEF(lnh)
1.%E-01
1.96E-OI
1.96E-01
1.96E-01
1.96E-01
1.96E-01
1.96E-01
Doselinh)
|mg/(kg>d)|(>
1.16E-06
1.10E46
7.14E43
2.59E-01
131E-03
3.9SE-»
2.39E-05
Chronic Reference dose (RfD)
(mg'fkg'dn
Not available
1.00E-01
l.OOE-02
7.35E-03
2.00E-01
1 2.ME-01
2.00E400
Hazard quotient
(Dose/RfD)
Not available
i.ioe-4»
7.14E-01
3.52E+01
1.15E-02
1.99E-OS
1.20E-05
Hazard Index -3.S9E+01
Source of Information
forRlTX
Not available
IRIS
IRIS
IRIS
Slate of Calif.
HEAST
IRIS
CvOCbbs) r
-------
Interim ROD for Iht Building 8» Operable Unit. Site 300
199$
Table 14. Calculation of noncanccr hazard Index attributable to Inhalation of participates resuspended from contaminated surface soil (0 to 0.5 ft) In the Building 834 operable unit (adult on-site exposure).
Chemical
Acetone
Cadmium
Trlchloroethylene
TiichlorofluoromeUtane
Trlchlorotrlfliioroclhane
Xylenea
l&b
L29E-09
3.WE-07
1.62E-09
Z94E-10
8.42E-10
8.17E-11
PEFdnh)
|mV(kg.d)lb
1.96E-01
1.96E-01
1.96E-01
1.96E-01
1.96E-01
1.96E-01
Dose(Inh)
(mg/(kg«d))<>
Z54E-10
7.21E-08
3.17E-10
S.76E-11
1.63E-10
1.60E-11
Chronic Reference dose (RfD) Hazard quotient
lmg/(kg«d)| (DoK/RfD)
l.OOE-01
l.OOE-03
7.35E-03
2.00E-OI
3.00E+01
2.0QE+00
2.54 E-09
7J1E-OS
4.31E-08
2.88E-10
5.SOE-12
8.00E-12
Hazard Index - 7.22E-03
Source of Information
forRilX Comments
IRIS
IRIS
Slate of Calif.
HEAST Based on RfD (inn)
IRIS
IRIS
1 C«(se) refers to the concentration (C) of contaminant on resuspendcd partlculales In air (p) (the exposure medium), which results directly from the presence of contaminant In surface soil (ss).
b PEP pathway exposure factor; Inn « exposure and/or dose from Inhalation.
< HEAST refen to the Health Effects Assessment Summary Tables published by the U.S. EPA (1992bx); Slate of Calif, refen to California Environmental Protection Agency (199JI; IRIS refen to the Integrated Risk Information System, an on-line
database maintained by the US. EPA (1993d).
Table 15. Calculation of noncancer hazard Index attributable to Incidental ingestion and direct dermil contact with surface soil (0 to 0.5 ft) in the Building 834 operable unit (adult on-slte exposure).
Chemical
Acetone
Cadmium
TrlchJoroeUiylene
TrichlorofluoromeUiane
Trichlorolrifluoroe thane
Xylenea
C.O.)
(me/kg)*
M3E-02
L60E+01
7.03E-OI
1J8E-01
3.66E-02
3.55E-OJ
PEF(lng)
lk(/(kg«d)l>>
4J9&07
4.89E-07
4J9E-07
4J9E-07
4J9E-07
4^9E-07
Dow(lng)
|mg/(kg«d)lb
2.7SE4M
7.8IE-06
3.44E-08
6.25E49
1.79E41
L74E49
PEF(derm)
[kg/(kg>d)|l>
5.93E47
1.98E-07
5.93E47
3.93E^)7
5.93E-07
3.93E-07
Doi«(derm)
|mg/(kg line exposure medium), wnicn results directly irom me presence 01 contaminant In aurfsce soil (ss).
pathway eioosure factor; *lng* « exposure and/or dose from tngestloiu snd 'derm* - exposure and/or dose from dermal absorption.
of Calif, refen to California Environmental Protection Agency (1M2); IRIS refen to the Integrated Risk Information System, an on-line computerized database maintained by the US. EPA (MMd).
( Suit of Calif, refe
T-ll
-------
UCRL-M-IIV19I
Interim KODJarilu ButUli>l 834 OftmUt Vnll, Silt 300
I9ti
T.blt II Ciloilillon odHMiunrai luiinl bidn MnUhiliMt to niUtnHtl aw of conlimliuttd ground MUM (nwi iht BuildInj U4 opmbb lull
Oiraitnl
Clmik
(ibttnn Hiurf
4Mfl«n lodii
turn ml
InhmiHM
man
PERInj)
ptodxt rntmn Omul
«fOn|>
Do«(ln|> RfMmdl
1rMlhr<«lf M4E-IO 17JE-OI
Tdmm 4/nt-ll 4.1IUI
TihMoraHhjtim 14SB-C7 MIEOt
TiMilmMlhomtliiiM USC-IO
Xilntn 1HE-II IOJMJ
U5E-II
JTE-11
IJIE-11
i.roe-ii
14IE-II
NA'
NA'
NA'
NA'
NA'
NA'
NA'
NA'
NA'
NA'
NA'
NA'
NA'
NA'
NA'
NA'
NA'
NA'
NA'
NA'
NA'
NA'
NA'
NA'
NA'
NA'
NA'
NA'
NA'
NA'
NA'
NA*
NA'
NA'
NA'
HIMMa)
174E-M
I.74I-01
174E-01
17IE-0!
174(41
inuu
J.74E-OJ
174E-OI
1748-01
J-74E-01
174E-OJ
mill
1471-11
rnE-u
uat-ii
174C-OI
J.44E-U
445E-11
I74E-I1
MOB-ll
J.TOBOt
I.J4E-07
I34E-07
IMC-07
2.ME-JD
I.I1E-1I
7.»JMI
H4E-I1
I.HE-04 1.4JE-I7
tmi-at 1.WI-1I
IKE-Ot 1J4E-U
4.I1E47 145E-I7
1.ME-I4
tllE-07
M1C-IO
111BJ7
I.4IE-07
1.11E47
UIKW
171E-04)
1.UE-M
IJTM7
4.IIC4I7
I.OE-W
4-J1B-H
S.ltC-17
UW-ll
IME-17
1.ME-I4
I.MC-U
4.ME-1I
U4E-H
JJIE-17
tMt-U
i.nE-i«
ian-n
ijse-a
1UE-04
U1E49
UIC41
tunuM
I.I7B4U
4.UB44
Mf-Ot
1.IIE-0)
730E-H
IMt-ll
UIE-11
MSM4
IJ1B.1I)
M>C-» UIMI
1071-11 IMKO
un-it i.ntta
MiMl i.iixa
1441-11
iMt-ll
44K-14
MM-II
U4C-IO
UOB-U
IJM-II
J4B-1I Itt&m
US»U IXDMI
UDBB-U N«4
mlUMt
rjot-it \toun
U3B-U
4.4H-U
4.MI-IO
ltlt.ll
4.I4B-U
UHt-li
i.ne-ii
4.77E-1I
4UMVI1 100B4I
1JIE-OI
UW1I
I.I1E-1I
*07t-u mi
IWE-ll HIAIT
NM NX
nlliUi infliHt
IMUt Illl
IMC-M HEAST
fMB-lt Illl
t.HS-10 . Illl
4.77B4M III!
itdE-ii mi
1.71E-04 IUM«I
OU«.
U7c.il nn
t-UB»lt Illl
-ITtlK*
dul mull ftta tafiiltai M IMMlmni M).
< HI* Jf nfm I. * HuM «Mi
«ub
-------
UCRL-AR-119791
Interim ROD for the Building 834 Operable Unit. Site 300
1995
Table 17. Estimated incremental lifetime cancer risk and noncancer hazard index associated
with potential adult on-site exposure in the Building 834 operable unit (pump station
Building 834D: inhalation of VOCs that volatilize from subsurface soil to indoor air).
Chemical
Benzene
Ethylbenzene
Tetrachloroethylene
Toluene
Trichloroethylene
Trichlorofluoromethane
Xylenes
Contaminant
concentration
CVoc(sbs) (mg/rn3)"
5.92 xKT6
5.62x10-*
3.64xl(T2
2Jtoxl(rs
132x10°
1.18xlO-2
1.22x10-*
ZRisk =
Individual lifetime
cancer risk
4.14x10-*
Not carcinogenic
130x10"*
Not carcinogenic
9.23x10-*
Not carcinogenic
Not carcinogenic
lxl(T3
Hazard index
(Dose/RfD)
Notavailableb
1.10 xlO-5
7.14 xMT1
352 xlO1
1.15x10-2
1.99 x 1(T5
1.20 x 1(T5
I Hazard
index = 36
a Cvodebs) refers to the concentration (O of volatile organic compound in indoor air (voc) (the exposure
medium), resulting directly from the presence of contaminant in subsurface soil (sbs).
b A reference dose (Rfd) is not available.
Table 18. Estimated incremental lifetime cancer risk and noncancer hazard index associated
with potential adult on-site exposure in the Building 834 operable unit (vicinity of pump
station Building 834D: inhalation of VOCs that volatilize from subsurface soil to air).
Chemical
Benzene
Ethylbenzene
Tetrachloroethylene
Toluene
Trichloroethylene
Trichlorofluoromethane
Xylenes
Contaminant
concentration
Ca(st)s) (mg/m *)*
3.46 xlO-6
538x10-*
2^9x10-2 .
1.49xl(T5
7.98 x 10-1
5.47x10-3
1.21 x 10-*
!Risk =
Individual lifetime
cancer risk
2.42x10-*
Not carcinogenic
8.17 x ID"5
Not carcinogenic
5.58x10-*
Not carcinogenic
Not carcinogenic
I Hazard
6 x 10"* index =
Hazard index
(Dose/RfD)
Not available5
lJ)5xirs
4.49 x lO"1
1.46 xlO-5
2.13 xlO1
536 x 10~3
1.19 x 10~5
' 22
a Ca(sbs) refers to the concentration (C) of contaminant in air (a) (the exposure medium), resulting directly from
the presence of contaminant in subsurface soil (sbs).
b A reference dose (Rfd) is not available.
T-13
-------
UCRL-AR-119791
Interim ROD for the Building 834 Operable Unit. Site 300
1995
Table 19. Estimated incremental lifetime cancer risk and noncancer hazard index associated
with potential adult on-site exposure in the Building 834 operable unit (overall operable unit:
inhalation of particulates resuspended from surface soil).
Chemical
Acetone
v flflip ^ v tn
Trichloroethylene
Trichlorofluoromethane
Trichlorotrifluoroethane
Xylenes
Contaminant
concentration
1^9x10^9
3.68 xl(T7
1.62x10-9
2.94 xlO-10
8.42 xl(T10
8.17 xlO-11
I Risk =
Individual lifetime
cancer risk
Not carcinogenic
336 xlO-7
L13X10"12
Not carcinogenic
Not carcinogenic
Not carcinogenic
I Hazard
4 xlO-7 index =
Hazard index
(Dose/RfD)
234x10-9
7.21X10-5
431x10"*
238 xlO-10
530 xlO-12
kOOxMT12
7.2X10-5
a Cp(ss) refers to the concentration (C) of contaminant on resuspended particulates in air (p) (the exposure
medium), resulting directly from the presence of contaminant in surface soil (ss).
Table 20. Estimated incremental lifetime cancer risk and noncancer hazard index associated
with potential adult on-site exposure in the Building 834 operable unit (overall operable unit:
ingestion arid dermal adsorption from surface soil).
Chemical
Acetone
Cadmium
Trichloroethylene
Trichlorofluoromethane
Trichlorotrifluoroethane
Xylenes
Contaminant
concentration
Cs
-------
VCRL-AR-119791 Interim ROD for the Building 834 Operable Unit, Site 300 1995
Table 21. Additive risk and hazard index for adults on site in the Building 834 operable unit
(total outdoor exposure only).
Region or source
of exposure
Subsurface soil in the
vicinity of Building 834D
Surface soil throughout the
study area (resuspended
particulates)
Surface soil throughout the
study area (ingestion and
dermal contact)
I Risk =
Calculated risk
associated with
the region
or source
6XKT4
4xl(T7
4xl
-------
UCRL-AR-119791
Interim ROD for the Building 834 Operable Unit. Site 300
1995
Table 22. Estimated incremental lifetime cancer risk and noncancer hazard index associated
with potential residential exposures to contaminated ground water that originates in the
Building 834 operable unit (well CDF-1).
1,1,1-Trichloroe thane
1,1-Dichloroethylene
Acetone
Benzene
Chloroform
cis-l,2-Dichloroethylene
Ethylbenzene
Methylene chloride
Tetrachloroethylene
Toluene
Trichloroethylene
Trichlorotrifluoroethane
Xylenes
Contaminant
concentration
Cw(gw) (mg/L)a
1.32x10-*
6.00 xKT11
3.90XKT11
9.90 x!0~12
7.48 xKT11
9.99x10-*
8.98 xlO-12
1.77 x 10~10
6.44 xlO~10
4.01 x 10-"
1.35 xlO~7
2.55 x ID"10
2.84 x KT11
I Risk =
Individual lifetime
cancer risk
Not carcinogenic
2.77 x 10~12
Not carcinogenic
437 xltr14
2.00 xlO-13
Not carcinogenic
Not carcinogenic
5.21 xlO-14
1.49 x 10~12
Not carcinogenic
6.38 x 10-"
Not carcinogenic
Not carcinogenic
7 x KT11
Hazard index
(Dose/RfD)
7.24 xlO"9
6.89 xlO-10
2.85x10-"
Not availableb
7.00 x 10-10
1.01 x 10"6
9.45 x 1(T12
3.10 x ID"10
6.60 x 10-9
1.98 x 10-"
1.67 x 10~*
8.44 x 10-13
1.53 x ID"12
I Hazard
index = 2.8XKT6
3 cw(gw) refers to the concentration (O of contaminant in water (w). Water is the exposure medium for
ingeshon and dermal absorption of contaminants, and also is the transfer medium for exposures that result
from ingestion of homegrown beef, milk, and fruits and vegetables that are raised with contaminated ground
water (gw).
b A reference dose (RfD) is not available.
Table 23. Concentration of TCE in subsurface soil, Cs, associated with a hazard index of 1,
cancer risks of KT4 and 10-6, and us. EPA Region IX PRG.
Hazard index
(1)
Excess
cancer risk
(10-4)
Excess
cancer risk
Region IX PRG Region IX PRG
industrial soil residential soil
Cs (mg/kg)a
2.2b
7.45
7.45 x 10~2
3.3
a Cs (mg/kg) is the calculated concentration of TCE in soil associated with a specific target hazard or risk and
represents a potential soil remediation level.
" The soil vapor concentration at equilibrium with 23. mg/kg is 250 ppmv/v.
T-16
-------
UCRLrAR-l 19791
Inurtm ROD for the Building 834 Opf ruble Vnil. Sill 300
I99S
Table 24. Detailed evaluation of remedial alternative* for the Building 834 operable unit.
Evaluation criteria
Remedial alternative
Overall protection of human Compliance with
health and the environment ARARs/RAO
Long-term effectlveneia and
permanence
Reduction In volume,
toxlclly, and mobility
Short-term tt fecthrenai
ImplemenUblllty
Alternative 1
No action
Alternative 2
Inhalation exposure
control!, LNAPL
recovery, and drainage
control*
Alternative 3
Source man removal
by SVE and LNAPL
recovery, exposure
and drainage controls
Is not protective of human
health and the environment
at the Building 834
Complex.
Maintains acceptable risk
associated with off-site
downgradlenl water-supply
wells completed In the
regional aquifer.
Exposures to human health
risks reduced to EPA-
ccepted levels Inside
buildings but not outside.
No air emission*.
Maintains acceptable risk
associated with off-site
downgradlent water-supply
wells completed In the
regional aquifer.
Exposures to human health
risks reduced to EPA-
accepted level*.
Adverse Impacts to
environment from VOCs are
substantially reduced.
Result* In negligible risk to
employees and the public
from system operation or
exposure to air emissions.
Maintains acceptable
exposure risk associated
with off-site downgradlent
water-supply wells
completed In the regional
aquifer.
Does not meet ARAR* Does not reduce VOCs In soil vapor to
or the human Inhalation IS VRU.
RAO.
Meets all ARAR*, and Localized Infiltration and drainage
achieves the human control will prevent migration of
Inhalation RAO. VOCs from source areas.
Building ventilation and Institutional
controls will reduce Inhalation health
risks to worker* In Building 834
Complex building* to EPA-accepted
levels. Does not reduce VOCs In soil
vapor to SVRLs.
Meets all ARAR*, and
achieves the human
Inhalation RAO.
Remove* VOCs. SVE and treatment
system operated until soil vapor
concentrations indicate that SVRLs
have been achieved or effectiveness of
the technology Is expired (estimated
5 year).
Mass removal reduces potential for
VOC migration to regional aquifer.
Spent CAC Is regenerated off site.
LNAPL* an recycled or disposed of
off site.
Localized Infiltration and drainage
control will prevent migration of
VOCs from source areas.
Building ventilation and Institutional
controls will reduce Inhalation health
risks to worker* In Building 834 core
area buildings.
Volume, mobility, and
loxlclly of VOC* not
reduced. Subsurface
restoration depends on
natural degradation,
dispersion, and
evapotransplratlon of
VOCs.
LNAPLs removed from
site.
Volume and toxlclty of
VOCslnaolland
ground water not
reduced. Infiltration
control will reduce
mobility.
Source mass reduction
depends on natural
degradation, dispersion,
and evapotransplratlon
of VOCs.
Volume and loxlclry of
VOCa reduced by
LNAPL recovery, SVE
and treatment VOC
vapor migration
controlled by SVE
Off-site thermal
regeneration of spent
CAC destroys VOC*.
VOC solubilities and
diffusion rates limit
total mass removal of
VOCs dissolved In
ground water or from
probable DNAPLs.'
Natural degradation
and evapotransplration
of VOCs continues.
No Impact to general public
Possible exposure of worker*
during drilling and monitoring.
Use of protective procedure*,
clothing, and equipment will
mitigate risk.
No Impact to general public
Short-term Impact to workers and
access to Building 834 facilities
' during drilling and construction.
Coordinate short-term shutdown of
Building 834 facilities.
Possible exposure of workers
during monitoring, LNAPL
recovery, and surface grading. Use
of protective procedures, clothing,
and equipment will mitigate risk.
Costs provided for LNAPL recovery
for 2-year duration.
No impact to general public
CAC used to control air emissions
from SVE, preventing Impact on
community*
Provides option to conduct pilot
testa and Implement promising
Innovative technologic* using BAT
to ensure that no release* occur.
Possible exposure of workers
during monitoring, LNAPL
recovery, drilling, and construction
of piping and treatment systems.
Use of protective procedures,
clothing, and equipment will
mitigate risk.
Remediation coiled for 5-year
duration.
Implementable.
Ongoing monitoring would be reduced.
Implementable.
Building ventilation would maintain air
concentrations at acceptable level*. Hardware
Is readily available. .
Standard design and construction techniques
and materials used for drainage control.
Passive skimmers readily available
Recovered LNAPL* will be managed a* a
hazardous waste.
Low mslntcnance, long-term effectiveness,
tow cost.
Implementable. SVB and air emission*
control using GA(? are BAT for removing
VOCs from vadose zone.
Subsurface hydrogeology Is appropriate for
SVE
LLNL has permit* for construction and
operation of SVE treatment system.
Services and materials for system
construction, O&M, and off-site regeneration
of CAC are available.
Substantial portion of the system I* In place
and operating.
Skimming LNAPLs Is a standard technology.
Building ventilation would maintain air
concentration* at acceptable levels. Hardware
Is readily available.
Standard design and construction technique*
and materials used for drainage control.
T-17
-------
Interim ROD far the Building S34 Optrable Unit, Silt 300
I99S
Table 24. (Continued)
Evaluation criteria
Remedial alternative
Overall protection of human
health and the environment
Compliance with
ARARs/RAO
Long-term effectiveness and
permanence
Reduction In volume.
toxlclty, and mobility
Short-term effecHvenen
Implemen lability
Alternative 3Continued
' Current Industrial health, safely, and
hygiene and hazardous material*
handling practices are designed to
prevent creation of new sources.
Provides opHon to conduct pilot tests
and Implement promising Innovative
technologies.
Soil vapor and ground water
monitoring continue after remediation
to ensure permanence of shallow
vadose-zone cleanup.
Possible reduction In
volume, loxldty, and
mobility due to
bloremedlaUon
augmented by SVE
Alternative 4
Source mass removal by
SVE with dewalering
andbyDNAFLand
LNAPL recovery,
exposure and drainage
controls
Exposure* to human health Meets all ARARs, and
riska reduced to EPA- achieves the human
accepted levels. Inhalation RAO.
Advene Impact* to
environment from VOC* are
substantially reduced.
Result* In negligible risk to
employee* and lite public
from system operation or
exposure to discharged
treated water or air
emissions.
Maintain* acceptable
exposure risk associated
with off-die downgradlent
water-tupply wells
completed In the regional
aquifer.
Remove* VOC*. Soil vapor extraction
and treatment *y*tem operated until
oil vapor concentrations Indicate that
SVRL* have been achieved or
effecrivene** of technology I) expired
(Mllmtled S year).
Dewatering Increases SVE
effectiveness and mas* removal.
Mass removal reduce* potential for
VOC migration to regional aquifer.
Spent GAC I* regenerated off lite.
DNAPU and LNAPls an recycled or
disposed of off site.
Localized Infiltration and drainage
control will prevent migration of
VOCs from source area*.
Building ventilation and Institutional
controls will reduce Inhalation health
risk* to worker* In Building 834 core
area building*.
Current Industrial health, safely, and
hygiene and hazardous material*
handling practice* are designed to
prevent creation of new source*.
Provides option to conduct pilot lest*
and Implement promblng Innovative
technologies.
Soil vapor and ground water
monitoring continue after remediation
to ensure permanence of (hallow
vadose-zone cleanup.
Volume and loxlclry of
VOC* reduced by SVG,
dewalering, and
treatment
VOC vapor migration
controlled by SVE.
VOC mobility at
complex reduced by
hydraulic control
during dewatering.
VOC solubilities and
diffusion rates limit
total mass removal of
VOC* dissolved In
ground water or from
probable DNAPU.
OTf-*ll* thermal;
regeneration of (pent
GAC destroy) VOC*.
Natural degradation
and evapotraruplratlon
of VOC* continue*.
Ponlble reduction In
volume, toxlclly, and
mobility due to
bloremedlaUon
augmented by SVE
Infiltration control will
reduce mobility.
No Impact to general public.
C AC used to control air emission*
from air (tripper and SVB,
preventing Impact on community.
Provide* capability to conduct pilot
te*t* and Implement promising
Innovative technologic* utbig BAT
to ensure that no releases occur.
Possible exposure of worker*
during monitoring, LNAPL
recovery, drilling, and construction
of piping and treatment »y«tem*.
Use of protective procedure*,
clothing, and equipment will
mitigate risk.
SVE and dewatering nxted for
5-year duration.
Implementable. SVE and air emission*
control using GAC are BAT for removing
VOCs from vadose zone.
SupsuftflGc hydro jcolojy Is Appropriate for
SVE
Dewatering In the core area will expose more
loll and enhance mas* removal by SVE
LLNL ha* permit* for construction and
operation of SVB treatment system.
Air stripping I* BAT for removing VOC* In
ground water. Tray aeration eliminate*
adverse visual Impact of packed tower*.
RecarbonaUon system reduce* O*M due to
carbonate precipitation.
Service* and material* for lystem
construction, O&M, and off-site regeneration
of GAC are available.
Substantial portion of the system I* In place
and operating.
Standard requirement* for treated ground
water discharge would be met.
Recovered DNAPU and LNAPL* will be
managed a* a hazardous waste.
Building ventilation would maintain air
concentrations at acceptable level*. Hardware
I* readily available..
Standard design and conitnretlon technique*
and material* used for drainage control.
T-18
-------
UCfUsAR-l19791
Table 24. (Continued)
Interim ROD for the BalUlni 814 Ofirabli Unit, Site 300
199)
Evaluation ci iteria
Remedial alternative
Overall protection of human
health and the environment
Compliance with
ARARa/RAO
long-term effectiveness and
permanence
Reduction In volume,
toxlclry, and mobility
Short-term effectiveness
Implemenlablllly
Alternatives
Source mau removal by
SVEwllhdewalering
andbyDNAFLand
LNAFL recovery, plume
control downgiadlent by
ground water extraction,
exposure and drainage
control*
Exposure* to human health
risk* reduced to EFA-
accepted leveU.
Advene Impacta to
environment from VOCi an
substantially reduced.
Results In negligible rltk to
employees and the public
from system operation or
exposure to discharged
treated water or all
emissions.
Maintains acceptable
exposure risk associated
with off-tile downgradient
water-supply wells
completed In the regional
aquifer.
Meets «!IARAR*,«nd
achieves the human
Inhalation RAO.
SVE and treatment system operated
until soil vapor concentrations indicate
that SRLa may be achieved. Soil
confirmation sampling would be
conducted to demonstrate that SRU
have been achieved and system would
be shut off.
Dewaterlng Increases SVE
effectiveness and mass removal
Downgradient ground water extraction
and treatment operated until TCE
concentrations reach asymptotic levels
or MCU, whichever la higher
(estimated 30 year).
Mass removal reduces potential for
VOC migration to regional aquifer.
Spent GAC Is regenerated off site.
DNAFLs and LNAPU an recycled of
disposed off site.
Localized Infiltration and drainage ;
controls will prevent migration of
contaminants of concern from source
areas.
Building ventilation and Institutional
controls will reduce Inhalation health
risks to workers In Building S34 core
area buildings.
Current Industrial health, safely, and
hygiene and hazardous material*
handling practices are designed to
prevent creation of new source*.
Provides option to conduct pilot tests
and Implement promising Innovative
technologies.
Soil vapor and ground water
monitoring continue after remediation
to ensure permanence of shallow
vadose-zone cleanup.
Volume and loxlclty of
VOCs reduced by
LNAFL recovery, SVE
and treatment,
dewalering and
treatment and
downgradient ground
water extraction.
VOC vapor migration
controlled by SVE.
VOC mobility reduced
by hydraulic control.
VOC solubilities and
diffusion rate* limit
total ma** removal of
VOC* dissolved In
ground water or
probable DNAFLs.
Off-site thermal
regeneration of spent
GAC destroys VOCs.
Natural degradation
and evapotransplrallon
of VOCs continue*.
Possible reduction In
volume, toxlclly, and
mobility due to
bloremedlatlon
augmented by SVE.
Infiltration control may
eventually reduce
volume.
No Impact to community during '
construction. i
Use of G AC to control air emission!
from air stripper and SVE will
prevent Impact on community.
Provide* capability to conduct pilot
test* and Implement promising
Innovative technologic* using BAT
to ensure that no releases occur.
Possible exposure of worker*
during monitoring, LNAPL
recovery, drilling, and construction
of piping and treatment system*.
Use of protective procedure*,
clothing, and equipment will
mitigate rl*k.
SVE coiled for 5-year duration.
Ground water extraction roiled foi
5-, 10-, 20-, and 30-year duration*.
Imptementable. SVE and air emission*
control using GAC are proven remedial
technologies for removing VOCs from vadoM
ion* and controlling air emlulona.
Dewaterlng In the core area will expo** more
soil and enhance mau removal by SVE.
Subsurface hydrogeology Is appropriate
for SVE
LLNL ha* permit* for construction and
operation of SVE treatment *y*tem.
Substantial portion of treatment facility Is
constructed snd operating.
Operating and discharge permits will b*
obtained for treatment facility.
Air stripping Is proven for treatment of VOCs
In ground water. Tray aeration eliminate*
advene visual Impact of packed lower*.
Recarbonallon system reduces O*M due to
carbonate precipitation.
Service* and material* for system
construction, OatM, and for of f-«lle
regeneration of GAC are readily available.
Recovered DNAPLs and LNAPL* will be
managed as a hazardous waate.
Building ventilation would maintain air
concentrations at acceptable levels. Hardware
Is readily available.
Standard design and construction technique*
and material* used for drainage control.
T-19
-------
UCRMR-119791 httrlm ROD far lite Building 834 Optratle Unit. Sit, 300 I99j
Table 24. (Continued)
. Evaluation criteria
Overall protection of hunuit Compliance with Long-term effectiveness and Reduction In volume,
Remedial alternative health and the environment ARABs/RAO permanence tonlclty, and mobility Short-term effectiveness Implementablllly
Alternative** ~" " ' " ' " " ~~~
Remediation using
Innovative technology
> Innovative technology cottp'leTwTihsoliTi'por ntradlon (enhanced bjr ground water ertradlon, as needed) will address sll evaluation criteria similarly to Alternative 3 or 4 If perched lone IsTSSdTnroTSaXpUnT^"''^"'"^'"1"''^""
Innovative technology coupled with nil npor extraction (and contingent Alumatlv* 5 BAT) will address all evalusliim criteria similarly to Alternative j or 4 If perched tone Is not excluded from Basin Plan.
T-20
-------
UCKL-AR-119791
Interim ROD far the Building 834 OpemUt Unit. Site 300
im
Table 25. Comparative evaluation of remedial alternatives (or the Building 834 operable unit.
Alternative
Alternative 1
Alternative 2
Alternative 3
Alternative 4
Alternatives
Alternative 6
If perched zone
excluded from
Bat In Plan
If perched zone
not excluded from
Buln Plan
Overall protection of
human health and Compliance with Long-term effecllveneaa Reduction In volume, toxIcUy, and Short-term ' state Community
environment ARARa/RAO . and permanence mobility effectlveneu Implementablllty Relative Coil acceptance acceptance
Human health!
Environment:
Human health:
Inilde:
Oublde
Environment!
Human health:
Environment:
Human health:
Environment:
Human health:
Environment:
No
No
Yet
No
No
Yea
Yea
Yea
Yea
Yet
Yea
No Not effective Dependent on natural degradation Not effective Implementable ' Low TBD TBD
Yea Effective Limited reduction in core area Effective Implemenlable Moderate TBD TBD
LNAPL contamination
Yea Effective Reduction In core area vadose zone Effective Implementable High TBD TBD
and LNAPL contamination
Ye* Effective 'Reduction In core area vadoie zone. Very effective ' Implementable High TBD TBD
perched zone, and LNAPL
contamination
Yea Very effective Reduction In core area vadose zone. Very effective Implementable Very high* TBD TBD
perched zone, and LNAPL
contamination and downgradlent
perched zone contamination
TBD . To be detcnnlned.
* Overall cost if highly dependent on the required length of pumping lime.
T-21
-------
UCRLAR-I1979I
Interim HOD for ihe Bulldlnf 8)4 Operable Unll, Site 300
1993
Table 26. Soil v.por »nd ground water monitoring progum for Ihe Building R34 operable unit.
AlttnuHvc
period
(yeira)
1-5
6-30
^
1
1-5
6-30
2
Sollv.pot
1-3
6- JO
Ground wiler
1-9
«-30
3
Soil vapor
1
1-3
6-10
11-30
1
2-5
«-30
4
I
Soil npor
2-5
6-10
11-30
1-5
6-30
S
1
2-5
6-10
11-30
Ground wiler
1-5
6-30
Comments
W-634-B2
W-8M-B3
W434-B4(new) NA
W-834-C2
W-S34-C3(new) NA
W-8M-D2
W-M4-D3
W-W4-D4
W-834-OS
W-834-D6
W-834-D7
W-834-D8
W-834-D9A
W-S34-D10
W-834-DH
W-S34-O12 .
W434-D13
W-KM-D14
W-834-C3
W-834-H2
W-S34-J1
W-834-JJ
W-S34-J3 (new) NA
W434-K1
W-034-M1
W434-M2
W-834-SI
W-834-S2
W-834-S2A NA
W-W4-S3
W-834-S4
W-8J4-S5
W434-S6
W-834-S7 -
A
A
NA NA
A
NA NA
A
B
B
B
B
- A
A
- Q
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
NA NA
- A
A
A
A
A
NA NA
- A
- A
A
- Q
- A
A
A
NA
A
NA
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
NA
A
A
A
A
A
NA
A
A
A
A
A
_
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
_
NA
NA
NA
NA
NA
A
A
NA
A
NA
A
Q
Q
Q
B
A
Q
Q
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
NA
A
A
A
A
A
NA
NA
A
A
Q
A
A
A
NA
A
NA
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
NA
A
A
A
A
A
NA
NA
A
A
A
A
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
0
Q
Q
Q
Q
0
0
Q
_
0
Q
Q
NA
NA
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
8
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
_
_
B
B
B
NA
NA
_
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
'
A
A
A
A
A
_
A
A
A
NA
NA
_
.
_
_
NA
NA
_
Q
Q
Q
A
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
A
A
Q
Q
Q
A
A
A
A
A
NA
NA
A
A
Q
A
B
B
B
B.
A
B
B
B
B
B
B
Q
B
B
B
B
B
A
A
B
B
B
A
A
A
A
A
NA
NA
A
A
Q
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A.
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
NA
NA
A
A
A
A
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
A
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
0
Q
NA
NA
B
B
B
g
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B.
B
B
B
B
NA
NA
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
;A
A
A
NA
NA
- Q
- Q
- Q
A
n
- Q
- Q
- Q
- Q
- Q
- Q
- Q
- Q
- Q
- Q
- Q
- Q
- Q
- Q
A
A
- Q
- Q
- Q
- A
A
- A
A
A
NA NA
NA NA
A
A
- Q
- A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
NA
NA
A
A
A
A
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
Q
_
Q
Q
Q
NA
NA
.
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
B
8
B
B
B
B
B
_
B
B
B
NA
NA
_
A
'A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
_
A
A
A
NA
NA
_
- Q
- Q
- Q
A
- Q
- Q
- Q
- Q
- Q
- Q
- Q
- Q
Q
- Q
- Q .
- Q
- Q
A
A
- Q
- Q
- Q
A
A
A
- Q
A
NA NA
NA NA
. A
A
- Q
A
B
B
B
B
B
A
B
B
B
B
B
B
A
B
B
B
B
B
A
A
B
B
B
A
A
A
B
A
NA
NA
A
A
A
A
GWE, SVE
GWE, SVB
GWE, SVE
GWB,* SVB
GWE, SVE
Cuird well*
GWE, SVE
OWE, SVB
GWE, SVE
GWE, SVE
GWE, SVE
GWE, SVE
Guard well
OWE,* SVE
GWE, SVB
GWE, SVB
GWE, SVB
GWB, SVB
«
GWE, SVB
GWE, SVB
GWE, SVB
GWB
To be destroyed
To be destroyed
T-22
-------
Inttrtm SOD far On Baidtnf IM t\,i&4, l/«ft Sis* 1OO
Table 26. (Continued)
Phaie
Monitoring
period
(yean)
Soil vapor
1-5
6-30
Ground wilcr
1-5
6-30
Soil vapot
1-4
6-30
Ground water
1-5
6-30
1
Soil npor
1
2-5
6-10
11-30
Ground water
1
»-3
*-JO
4
Soil vapor
1
2-5
6-10
11-30
Ground water
1-5
6-30
5
Soil npor
1
2-5
MO
1WO
Ground wait r
1-5
6-30
CHBflMlMi
W-834-S8
W-8M-S9
W-634-S10 (new)
W-634-Sll(new)
W-i34-S12(new)
W-834-T1 -
W-834-T2
W434-T2A
W-834-TJB
W434-T2C -
W-834-T1D
W-834-T3
W-834-T4
W-834-T4A
W-D34-T4B
W-834-T4C
W-834-TS
W-834-T7A
W-S34-T8
W-«34-T»
10 new (hallow
aoll vapor polnla B
Total aamplea
Quarterly
Blannually 10B
Annually
A
A
NA
NA
NA
- Q
A
A
A
. A
A
Q
B
B
B
B
- Q
- Q
- Q
- Q
A NA
BQ
11B
IDA BOA
A .
A
NA
NA
NA
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
.
A
A
A
A r-
A
A
A
NA B A
10B
49A ]OA
A
A
B
B
B
Q
A
A
A
A
A
Q
g
B
B
B
Q
Q
Q
Q
NA
J2Q
«B
29A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
NA
49A
. A
A
_ B
_ B
- - _ _ Q
A
A
A
' A
. A
_ _ _ Q
0
_ _ _ _ B
_ _ _ _ B
_ _ _ _ B
_ _ _ _ o
_ _ _ _ Q
_ _ _ _ Q
- - - . - 0
Q B A A NA
29Q MO
29B »B
29A IDA WA
A
A
1
1
Q
A
A
A
A
A
0
_
1
1
1
Q
0
Q
Q
NA
Q
MB
UA
A
A
fc
A
A
A
A '
A
A
A
A
A - - -
A ~~ ' '
A _j_ ^
A
A
A - - -
A
A
A
NA Q B A
2»Q
KB
S2A MA
A
A
B
B
- Q
A
A
A
A
A
- Q
0
B
B
B
- Q
Q
- Q
- Q
A NA
28Q
7B
IDA 17A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
*
A
A
A
A
A
A
A
NA
52A
- - A 1
- - - - Q
g
- - - _ Q
- - - - Q
- - - - 0
- - - - . Q
- - - - Q
- - o
. - - o
- - - - 0
_ _ _ _ o
- - - - Q
_____ Q
_ _ _ _ Q
_ _ _ _ Q
_ _ _ g
_ _ _ _ Q
_ _ - - Q
Q B A A NA N
29Q «0
MB »
»A IDA I2A li
k
curl
Guard we*
cwt
UWI
VMTI
Cuardi-ell
ctvt
GWI
Cueitfnll
Guard writ
CuodrnU
Guard wrtl
A
B
*
Ltgtnd: Q.quarterly, B»blannually, A>anmulry, .nolampllng, GWE-gntund w>tn»it»dlon,SVe.ioltM|x»>ttiaitU-.NA-«i>«ypllcibli<-. wtlllahllloricatlvdiy.
Notes W«lb W-U4-C2 and W-B34 -DID will be uaed for CWBII wattr table rim.
T-23
-------
VCKL-AR-119791 Interim ROD [or the Building 8)4 Operable Untl, Site 300
1993
This page Intentionally left blank.
T-24
-------
UCRL-AR-119790DR
Draft. Final Interim ROD for the Building 834 Operable Unit, Site 300
1995
Table 27. Alternative 6: Capital costs for source mass removal at the core of the
Building 834 operable unit using soil vapor extraction enhanced by dewatering.
Unit price Total
Quantity Unit type (1994$) (1994$)
Capital costs
Total fluids and soil vapor extraction (SVE) system
Wellhead modifications
Additional wellhead modifications
Electrical supply line
4-in. PVC piping
2-1/2-in.PVC piping
Nalgene tubing
Pneumatic total fluids pumps
Pneumatic total fluids pumps
Pneumatic lines in wells
Air compressors (7.5 hp)
Air compressor lines in trenches
PVC pipe fittings, unistrut
Ground water extraction system valves, sampling
ports, gauges
Additional GWE valves, sampling ports, gauges
SVE pitot tubes, vacuum gauges, sampling ports
SVE pitot tubes, vacuum gauges, sampling ports
major equipment costs (MEC)
9 previously installed
10 each 500 5,000
Previously installed
700 foot 8.20 5,740
700 foot 4.40 3,080
1,000 foot 1.41 1,410
3 previously purchased
16 each
16 each
1 each
1,000 foot
1 lot
3 previously purchased
16 well 500 8,000
9 previously installed
10 well 1,000 10,000
2,400
250
5,000
1.40
5,000
38,400
4,000
5,000
1,400
5,000
Ground water treatment MEC
Phase separator (with LNAPL and DNAPL collection
drums)
Transfer drum (55 gallons)
Air misting storage tank (5,000 gallons)
Transfer pump (1 /6 hp)
Transfer pump (1-1/2 hp)
Particulate filter assembly
Low profile tray air stripper, Model 1321
Knockout drum, demister, carbon bed hookup
Air heater (700 W)
Aqueous-phase carbon beds (200 Ib)
Vapor-phase caibon beds (1,000 Ib)
1
3
1
2
2
Previously
1
1
1
2
2
each
each
each
each
each
installed
each
each
each
each
each
15,000
200
5,000
300
500
13,000
1,100
500
500
6,000
15,000
600
5,000
600
1,000
W,000
1,100
500
1,000
12,000
T-25
-------
UCRL-AR-119790DR
Draft Final Interim ROD for the Building 834 Operable Unit, Site 300
1995
Table 27. Alternative 6: Capital costs for source mass removal at the core of the
Building 834 operable unit using soil vapor extraction enhanced by dewatering.
Unit price Total
Quantity Unit type (1994$) (1994$)
Air stripper vapor exhaust blower (2 hp)
Manifold, piping, valves, gauges, sampling ports,
totalizer, controllers
Discharge piping and fittings
Pipe heating tape
Addition to existing air misting discharge unit
1 each
1 lot
Previously installed
2,000 . foot
1 each
3,500
3,500
10,000 10,000
2 4,000
10,000 10,000
SVE treatment MEC
Knockout drum, demister, carbon bed hookup
SVE blower system (10 hp)
Air heater (700 W)
Vapor-phase carbon beds (2,000 Ib)
Valves, gauges, sampling ports, controllers
SVE manifold, piping, exhaust
Total MEC for exposure control and ground water and
SVE treatment systems
Electrical components (20% of MEC)
Installation cost (58% of MEC)
Major equipment installed cost (MEIC)
Drainage control
Grading, asphalt paving, curbs, culverts, drainage
pipe installation
Trenching
Trenching in paved areas
Soil analyses and aeration
Wells/borings
Dedicated soil vapor monitoring point
Well installation and development
Soil boring and initial water sample analyses
Pump test
1
each
1,100
1,100
Previously installed
1
3
1
1
1
500
20
10
6
6
6
each
each
lot '
lot
bid
foot
cu. yard
point
well
well
well
500
7,700
10,000
10,000
325300
40
200
5,000
10,000
8,000
3,000
500
23,100
10,000
10,000
209,030
41,806
121,237
372^)73
325,500
20,000
4,000
50,000
60,000
48,000
18,000
T-26
-------
VCRL-AR-119790DR
Draft Final Interim ROD for the Building 834 Operable Unit. Site 300
1995
Table 27. Alternative 6: Capital costs for source mass removal at the core of the
Building 834 operable unit using soil vapor extraction enhanced by dewatering.
Well destruction
final confirmatory soil borings and analyses
Structures
Equipment building
Geotechnical
Quantity
2
10
1
1
Unit type
well
boring
each
each
Unit price
(1994$)
10,000
3,000
300,000
10,000
Total
(1994$)
20,000
30,000
300,000
10,000
Subtotal field costs
Contractor overhead and profit (15% of subtotal field
costs)
Subtotal contractor field costs
LLNL material procurement charge (MFC) (18% of
contractor field costs)
1,257,573
188,636
1,446,209
260318
LLNL Protective Services
Escort service (2 guards for 20 weeks)
Total field costs (TFC)
200
day
320 64,000
1,770,527
Professional environmental services
Design
Permitting
Start-up labor and analyses
SVE tests
SVE performance evaluation
Subtotal professional environmental services
LLNL MFC (9.7% of professional environmental
services)
Total professional environmental services
50,000
30,000
40,000
20,000
50,000
190,000
18,430
208,430
T-27
-------
UCRL-AR-119790DR
Draft Final Interim ROD for the Building 834 Operable Unit, Site 300
1995
Table 27. Alternative 6: Capital costs for source mass removal at the core of the
Building 834 operable unit using soil vapor extraction enhanced by dewatering.
LLNL ERD team
Full time employee
Total LLNL ERD team
LLNL technical support services
LLNL Plant Engineering planning and Title I,
services (33% of TFC)
Implementation of institutional controls
Total LLNL support services
Quantity Unit type
1 year
II, and III
Unit price Total
(1994$) (1994$)
120,000 120,000
120,000
584,274
50,000
634^74
Building ventilation system modification major equipment costs (MEC)
Building 834 A
Building 834D
Building 834]
Building 834O
Seal cracks/epoxy-coat floors
Total building ventilation retrofits
Remedial Design Report/Treatability study
Total capital costs (TCC)
1 each
1 each
1 each
1 each
~
1 each
10,000 10,000
5,000 5,000
4300 4,500
4,500 4,500
20,000
44,000
300,000 300,000
3,077,231
Operation and Maintenance Costs
Fixed annual O&M costs for SVE
Electricity
Electrical capacity charge
Project management
System optimization, engineer
Well field optimization, hydrogeologist
Operating labor
64,700 kwh
8.2 kw
300 hour
400 hour
400 hour
250 hour
0.07 4,529
36 295
75 22,500
75 30,000
68 27,200
55 13,750
T-28
-------
UCRL-AR-119790DR
Draft Final Interim ROD far the Building 834 Operable Unit, Site 300
1995
Table 27. Alternative 6: Capital costs for source mass removal at the core of the
Building 834 operable unit using soil vapor extraction enhanced by dewatering.
Unit price Total
Quantity Unit type (1994$) (1994$)
Clerical
SVE air permit compliance reporting (monthly)
Total fixed annual SVE O&M costs
Total present worth of fixed O&M for soil vapor'
extraction, years 1-5 (factor = 432)
200
12
hour
report
45
2,000
9,000
24,000
131,274
593,359
Fixed annual O&M costs for dewatering
Electricity
Electrical capacity charge
Project management
System optimization, engineer
Well field optimization, hydrogeologist .
Operating labor
Clerical
Ground water treatment system analyses (water only)
Ground water treatment air permit compliance
reporting (monthly)
Ground water discharge reporting (monthly)
Maintenance (10% of MEIC)
Total fixed annual dewatering and plume control O&M costs
Total present worth of fixed O&M for ground water
extraction, years 1-5 (factor = 4.52)
93,000
11.8
200
300
300
500
200
12
12
12
kw»h
kw
hour
hour "
hour
hour
hour
event
report
report
.
0.07
36
75
75
68
55
45
500
2,000
2,000
6,510
425
15,000
22,500
20,400
27,500
9,000
6,000
24,000
24,000
37,207
192,542
870,290
Total present worth of fixed O&M costs
1,463,650
Variable operating costs for source mass removal and plume control
Annual costs, year 1
SVE replacement of GAC
Ground water treatment system replacement of vapor
GAC
Ground water treatment system replacement of
aqueous GAC
17,860
3,440
40
Ib
lb
Ib
2.30
2.30
2.30
41,078
7,912
92
T-29
-------
VCRL-AR-119790DR
Draft Final Interim ROD for the Building 834 Operable Unit, Site 300
1995
Table 27. Alternative 6: Capital costs for source mass removal at the core of the
Building 834 operable unit using soil vapor extraction enhanced by dewatering.
Quantity
SVE air sampling 36
Ground water treatment system air sampling 36
Total annual costs, year 1
Total present worth, year 1 (factor = 0.97)
Annual costs, year 2
SVE replacement of G AC 3,040
Ground water treatment system replacement of vapor
GAC 1,720
Ground water treatment system replacement of
aqueous GAC 40
SVE air sampling 36
Ground water treatment system air sampling 36
Total annual costs, year 2
Total present worth, year 2 (factor = 0.93)
Annual costs, year 3
SVE replacement of GAC 1,985
Ground water treatment system replacement of vapor
GAC 1,720
Ground water treatment system replacement of
aqueous GAC 40
SVE air sampling 36
Ground water treatment system air sampling 36
Total annual costs, year 3
Total present worth, year 3 (factor = 0.90)
Unit price
Unit type (1994$)
. sample
sample
Ib
Ib
Ib
sample "
sample
Ib
Ib
Ib
sample
sample
100
100
2.30
2.30
2.30
100
100
2.30 .
2.30
230
100
100
Total
(1994$)
3,600
3,600
56,282
54,594
6,992
3,956
92
3,600
3,600
18,240
16,963
4,566
3,956
92
3,600
3,600
15314
14,232
Annual costs, year 4
SVE replacement of GAC 860 Ib
Ground water treatment system replacement of vapor
GAC 1,720 Ib
2.30 1,978
2.30 3,956
T-30
-------
UCRL-AR-119790DR
Draft Final Interim ROD for the Building 834 Operable Unit. Site 300
1995
Table 27. Alternative 6: Capital costs for source mass removal at the core of the
Building 834 operable unit using soil vapor extraction enhanced by dewatering.
Ground water treatment system replacement of
aqueous GAC
SVE air sampling
GWT air sampling
Total annual costs, year 4
Total present worth, year 4 (factor = 0.87)
Annual costs, year 5
SVE replacement of GAC
Ground water treatment system replacement of vapor
GAC
Ground water treatment system replacement of
aqueous GAC
SVE air sampling
GWT air sampling
Total annual costs, year 5
Quantity
40
36
36
480
1,720
40
36
36
Unit type
Ib
sample
sample
Ib
Ib -
Ib
sample
sample
Unit price
(1994$)
2.30
100
100
2.30
2.30
2.30
100
100
Total present worth, year 5 (factor = 0.84)
Total present worth of variable operating costs
Total present worth of fixed and variable O&M costs
Ground water
Annual costs, years 1-5
Quarterly water level measurements
Quarterly ground water monitoring and analyses
Biannual ground water monitoring and analyses
Annual ground water monitoring and analyses
Maintenance of ground water sampling system
Quarterly monitoring report
Project management
Hydrogeologist -
monitoring
52
28
7
17
52
4
500
200
well
well
well
well
well
report
hour
hour
55
640
320
160
430
15,000
75
68
Total
(1994$)
92
3,600
3,600
13,226
11,507
1,104
3,956
92
3,600
3,600
12,352
10,376
107,671
1,571,321
2,860
17,920
2,240
2,720
22,360
60,000
37,500
13,600
T-31
-------
UCRL-AR-119790DR
Draft Final Interim ROD for the Building 834 Operable Unit, Site 300
1995
Table 27. Alternative 6: Capital costs for source mass removal at the core of the
Building 834 operable unit using soil vapor extraction enhanced by dewatering.
Unit price Total
Quantity Unit type (1994$) (1994$)
Clerical
Total annual costs, years 1-5
Total present worth, years 1-5 (factor = 4.52)
Annual costs, years 6-30
Quarterly water-level measurements
Annual ground water monitoring and analyses
Maintenance of ground water sampling system
Quarterly monitoring report
Project management
Hydrogeologjst
Clerical
Total annual costs, years 6-30
Total present worth, years 6-10 (factor = 3.80)
Total present worth, years 11-15 (factor = 3.20)
Total present worth, years 16-20 (factor = 2.69)
Total present worth, years 21-25 (factor = 2.27)
Total present worth, years 26-30 (factor = 1.91)
Total present worth, years 6-30
200 hour 45 9,000
168,200
760,264
52 well 55 2,860
52 well 160 8320
52 well 430 22,360
4 report 15,000 60,000
500 hour 75 37,500
200 hour " 68 13,600
200 hour 45 9,000
153,640
583,832
491,648
413,292
348,763
293,452
2,130,987
Total present worth of ground water monitoring for
30 years
2^91,251
Soil vapor monitoring
Annual costs, year 1
Quarterly soil vapor monitoring and analyses from
extraction wells
19
well
400
7,600
T-32
-------
VCRL-AR-119790DR
Draft Final Interim ROD for the Building 834 Operable Unit, Site 300
1995
Table 27. Alternative 6: Capital costs for source mass removal at the core of the
Building 834 operable unit using soil vapor extraction enhanced by dewatering.
Unit price Total
Quantity Unit type (1994$) (1994$)
Quarterly shallow soil vapor point monitoring and
analyses 10 point 400 4,000
Total annual costs, year 1
Total present worth, year 1 (factor = 0.97)
11,600
11,252
Annual-costs, years 2-5
Biannual soil vapor monitoring and analyses from
extraction wells
Biannual shallow soil vapor point monitoring and
analyses
Total annual costs, years 2-5
Total present worth, years 2-5 (factor = 3.55)
Annual costs, years 6-10
Annual soil vapor monitoring and analyses from
extraction wells
Annual shallow soil vapor point monitoring and
analyses
Total annual costs, years 6-10
Total present worth, years 6-10 (factor = 3.80)
19
10
well
point
200
200
3,800
2,000
5,800
20,590
19
10
well 100 1,900
point . 100 1,000
2,900
11X120
Annual costs, years 11-30
Annual shallow soil vapor point monitoring and.
analyses
Total annual costs, years 11-30
Total present worth, years 11-15 (factor = 3.20)
Total present worth, years 16-20 (factor = 2.69)
Total present worth, years 21-25 (factor = 227)
Total present worth, years 26-30 (factor = 1.91)
10
point
100
1,000
1,000
3,200
2,690
2,270
1,910
T-33
-------
UCRL-AR-119790DR Draft Final Interim ROD for the Building 834 Operable Unit, Site 300 1995
Table 27. Alternative 6: Capital costs for source mass removal at the core of the
Building 834 operable unit using soil vapor extraction enhanced by dewatering.
Unit price Total
Quantity Unit type (1994$) (1994$)
Total present worth for soil vapor monitoring for 30
years 52,932
Subtotal present worth of Alternative 6 7,592,735
LLNL General & Administrative Tax (7.5%) 569,455
Subtotal 8,162,190
LLNL Lab-Directed Research & Development Tax (6.0%) 489,731
Subtotal 8,651,921
Contingency (20%) 1,730384
Total present worth of Alternative 6 10,382306
. T-34
-------
Table 28. ARARs for the selected interim remedy at the Building 834 operable unit.
1
Action
Source
Description
Application to the
selected remedy
Extraction of soil vapor and
dewatering of perched water*
bearing zone
Discharge of treated ground
water
State:
Chapter 15, CCR, Title 23,
Sections 2550.7, 2550.10.
(Applicable)
State:
SWRCB Resolution 68-16
(Antidegradation policy).
(Applicable)
Requires monitoring of the
effectiveness of remedial actions.
Requires that high quality surface
and ground water be maintained to
the maximum extent possible.
During and after completion of the
selected interim remedy,
concentrations of contaminants in
in situ soil vapor and ground water
will be measured.
In the context of the selected
interim remedy, this Is applicable
only to discharges of treated
ground water from the misting
towers. The compliance standards
for discharge water are contained
in the current Substantive
Requirements issued by the
RWQCB for the Building 834
operable unit
Discharge of treated soil vapor Local:
Sanjoaquin Unified Air Pollution
Control District (SJUAPCD)
Rules and Regulations, Rules
463.5 and 2201.
(Applicable)
Regulates nonvehicular sources of
air contaminants.
During the selected interim
remedy, contaminated soil vapor
will be treated with GAC or
equivalent technologies and
discharged to the atmosphere.
The compliance standards for
treated soil vapor are contained in
the current Authority To Construct
and subsequent Permit to Operate
issued by the SJUAPCD.
T-35
-------
Table 28. (Continued)
Action
Source
Description
Application to the
selected remedy
Disposition of hazardous waste State:
Protection of endangered species
Health and Safety Code, Sections
25100-25395, CCR, Title 22, ch. 30:
Minimum Standards for
Management of Hazardous and
Extremely Hazardous Wastes.
(Applicable)
Federal:
Endangered Species Act of 1973,
16 USC Section 1531 et seq. 50 CFR
Part 200,50 CFR Part 402 [40 CFR
257.3-2].
(Applicable)
State:
California Endangered Species.
Act, California Department of
Fish and Game Sections 20,50-
2068.
(Applicable)
Controls hazardous wastes from
point of generation through
accumulation, transportation,
treatment, storage, and ultimate
disposal.
Requires that facilities or practices
not cause or contribute to the taking
of any endangered or threatened
species of plants, fish, or wildlife.
NEPA implementation
requirements apply.
For the selected interim remedy,
this ARAR applies primarily to
spent G AC vessels.
Prior to any well installation,
facility construction, or similar
potentially disruptive activities,
wildlife surveys will be conducted
and mitigation measures
implemented if required.
§
to
I
I
t
I
I
-------
UCRL-AR-119791 InlerimROD for the Building 834 Operable Unit, Sue 300 1995
Acronyms
-------
UCRL-AR-119791
Interim ROD for Building 834 Operable Unit, Site 300
1995
Acronyms
AOS Adult On Site
ARARs Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Requirements
BAT Best Available Technology
Cal-EPA State of California, Environmental Protection Agency
CAREs Citizens Against a Radioactive Environment
CCR California Code of Regulations
CDF California Department of Forestry
GDI Chronic Daily Intake
CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980
CFR Code of Federal Regulations
CPF Cancer Potency Factor
DCE Dichloroethylene
DNAPLs Dense Nonaqueous Phase Liquids
DOE Department of Energy
DTSC Department of Toxic Substances Control
ECAO Environmental Criteria Assessment Office
FFA Federal Facility Agreement
FS Feasibility Study
GAC Granular Activated Carbon
GSA General Services Area
HE High Explosives
HEAST Health Effects Assessment Summary fables
HI Hazard Index
HQ Hazard Quotient
IRIS Integrated Risk Information System
ISVRL Interim Soil Vapor Restoration Level
LLNL Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory
LNAPLs Light Nonaqueous Phase Liquids
LOAEL Lowest-Observed-Adverse-Effect-Level
MCLs Maximum Contaminant Levels
-------
UCRL-AR-119791
Interim ROD for Building 834 Operable Unit. Site 300
1995
NCP National Contingency Plan
NEPA National Environmental Policy Act
NOAEL No-Observed-Adverse-Effect-Level
NPL National Priorities List
O&M Operations and Maintenance
OU Operable Unit
PCE Tetrachloroethylene
PEFs Pathway Exposure Factors
PP Proposed Plan
ppmv/v Parts Per Million on a Volume-to-Volume Basis
PRGs Preliminary Remediation Goals
QA Quality Assurance
QC Quality Control
Qt Quaternary Terrace Deposits
RAGS Risk Assessment Guidance for Superfund
RAOs Remedial Action Objectives
RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
RES Residential Exposure
RfD Reference Dose
ROD Record of Decision
RWQCB Regional Water Quality Control Board
SARA Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act
SITE Superfund Innovative Technology Evaluation
SJUAPCD San Joaquin Unified Air Pollution Control District
SVE Soil Vapor Extraction
SVS Soil Vapor Survey
SWRCB State Water Resources Control Board
SWRI Site Wide Remedial Investigation Report
T-BOS Tetra 2-ethylbutylorthosilicate
TBC To Be Considered
TBD To Be Determined
TCA Trichloroethane
-------
UCRL-AR-119791 Interim ROD for Building 834 Operable Unit, Site 300 1995
TCE Trichloroethylene
Tnbs i Miocene Neroly Formation Lower Blue Sandstone
Tnbs2 Miocene Neroly Formation Upper Blue Sandstone
TPH Total Petroleum Hydrocarbons
Tpsg Pliocene Nonmarine Unit (Gravel Facies)
U.S. EPA United States Environmental Protection Agency
UCLs Upper Confidence Limits
U.S. DOE United States Department of Energy
VOCs Volatile Organic Compounds
------- |