ENIERIGEALAIN - DTICJP-5 tanks, waehracks. hazardous materials, s-aini area SA-1 1 Underground...

I __________________I_____________

ADA2"6-9 49111!1i111 II H ll!1111iBi!!il I1E

ENIERIGEALAINCOTAAYI

FO OLVPRETATO

SIESEII OUET I

93200

Mclla irFreBs

BASE WIDEENGINEERING EVALUATION-COST ANALYSISFOR SOIL VAPOR EXTRACTION

SITE SPECIFIC DOCUMENT IC 7

S No.50473 2,

* ~~ OF CM\

McClellan Air Force BaseSeptember 1993Draft Final

Engineering Evaluation-Cost Analysis

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Section 1 Introduction I

Section 2 Site Characterization 2

Overview 2

Investigation Results 6

Geologic Data Interpretation 9

Soil Gas Data Interpretation 10

Contaminant Mass Calculations 17

Conclusions 21

Section 3 Justification of SVE Removal Action 23

Section 4 Removal Action Objectives 24

Scope 24

ARARs 24

Section 5 Conceptual Design and Cost 25

Conceptual Design 25

Cost Estimate 25

Section 6 Implementation Plan for SVE Removal Action 27

References 29io!78ssion ?or •

Glossary IC TAB 0Unrannounced Q 30

J. ... ...... tio

Availablt Codevala I and/or

No~t -E.•e161a

D u SITE SPECIFIC D T IC7 7

Engineertng Evaluation-Cost AnalyU

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 2-1 IC 7 Location Maps and Site Photographs of Borings 3

Figure 2-2 IC 7 Detailed Site Location Map 4

Figure 2-3 IC 7-Three-Dimensional Model of Geology lOa

Figure 2-4a Distribution of TCE (ppmv) in Soil Gas Regardlessof Soil Type 12

Figure 2-4b Distribution of PCE (ppmv) in Soil Gas Regardlessof Soil Type 12

Figure 2-4c Distribution of DCE12C (ppmv) in Soil Gas Regardlessof Soil Type 14

Figure 2-4d Distribution of FC113 (ppmv) in Soil Gas Regardlessof Soil Type 14

Figure 2-5 IC 7- Distribution of Toluene (BZME), DCCE11, andDCE12T in Soil Ga (ppmv) Regardless of Soil Type 15

Figure 2-6 IC 7-Plan View of TCE Plumes at an Elevation of 60 Feet(Southern Portion Contains Washrack and IWL Plumes) 16a

Figure 2-7 IC 7-Three-Dimensional Model of TCE Plumes(Left Plume at Washrack, Right Plume at IWL) 16b

Figure 2-8 PRL-S-35 Plume, Distribution of TCE in an East-WestCross Section 16c

Figure 2-9 IC 7- Location of Potential Sources 20

ly SITE SPECIRC DOCUMENT IC 7

Engineering Evaluation-Cost Analysts

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 2-10 Location of Extraction Wells in Relation to theDistribution of TCE 22

Figure 6-1 Schedule for EE/CA Site Specific Document for IC 7 27

Figure 6-2 Generic Schedule for Implementing an SVE System 28

SITE SPEIFCM WOLUfT IC7 v


LIST OF TABLES

Table 2-1 Background Information for Sites at IC 7 5

Table 2-3a Commonly Detected Analytes (ppbv) 8

Table 2-3c Analytes Never Detected 8

Table 2-3b Rarely Detected Analytes (ppbv), < 10% of All AnalyzedSamples 8

Table 2-3d Additional Analytes Never Detected Using Only TO-14 8

Table 2-4 Soil Volume Estimate and Average Soil Gas Concentrations,Homogenous Geologic Model 18

Table 2-5 Mass for Washrack and IWL Plumes Combined 19

Table 2-6 Mass of Contamination at Three Spreading Centers 19

Table 5-1 SVE Cost Estimate for IC 7 26

SITE SPECFIC DOCUMENT IC 7

Engineering Evaluation-Cost Analystis

Section 1INTRODUCTION

T his document supports the use of soil vapor extraction (SVE) as the non-time critical removal action for selected areas with high levels of volatile

organic compound (VOC) contamination in Investigation Cluster 7 (IC 7),which is located near the center of Operable Unit B (OU B). This SVEremoval action is part of the initial basewide SVE removal action at McClellanAir Force Base (McAFB). The principal objective of basewide SVE removalactions is to achieve early risk reduction by removing a significant quantity ofVOCs from soils in the vadose zone, intercepting an exposure pathway, orpreventing additional flow to groundwater.

This document is a companion to the Basewide Engineering Evaluation-Cost Analysis (EE/CA) General Evaluation Document. The General EvaluationDocument provides the long-term plan to standardize and streamline the useof SVE removal actions at McAFB by establishing SVE as the presumptiveremedy for McAFB; outlining a site selection methodology for SVE removalactions; and providing a general SVE system configuration and cost estimate.

The site-specific EE/CA for IC 7 focuses on information to supplement theGeneral Evaluation Document in support of the SVE removal action at IC 7.In particular, this document demonstrates that IC 7 satisfies the criteria listed inthe site selection methodology of the General Evaluation Document. Since theGeneral Evaluation Document establishes the case for treating SVE as thepresumptive remedy, this document contains no evaluation of alternatives.

SWTE SPEFCW WCLW IC 7


Section 2SITE CHARACTERIZATION

OverviewIC 7 covers an area of 15.5 acres and contains six Potential Release Locations(PRLs) and four Study Areas (SAs): PRL L-5B, PRL L-6, PRL P-9, PRL S-5,PRL S-34, PRL S-35, SA 7, SA 11, SA 14, and SA 18 (also identified as OT162,OT163, SD085, WPO90, SDl19, SD120, SD185, ST189, SD192, and SS196,respectively. Information about the location of these sites and the industrialactivities that occurred at them is summarized in figures 2-1 and 2-2, andtable 2-1. Significant geological, soil, and soil gas chemical data have beencollected in recent site characterization efforts that cover about 10 acres. Thegeologic and soil gas chemical data have been analyzed to identify sources ofcontamination in IC 7 and to model the subsurface geology and dispersion ofcontamination to identify candidate sites for SVE removal actions.

An effort to identify various sources was initiated with visual inspection of rawdata and contoured representation of chemical information. Areas withadequate data and significant chemical concentrations were selected forgeostatistical estimations to develop detailed models of the distribution ofcontamination. These efforts led to the identification of the following zones ofcontamination, or contamination spreading centers:

* The washrack plume near the northwest comer of Building 652 (PRL S-34)

* The Industrial Wastewater Line (IWL) plume near the northeast comer ofBuilding 652 (PRL S-34)

0 A VOC spreading center south-southeast of Building 654 (PRL S-35)

* Two small local zones of elevated VOC contamination

The washrack and IWL plumes will be included in the action EE/CA removalaction, and they will be described in detail in subsequent sections.

Data from recent soil borings were used to develop geologic models, whichare needed to generate estimates of VOC mass in soil and to assist in thedesign of the extraction system. Four silt and three sand bodies wereidentified throughout most of the contaminated area. The soil borings alsoprovided information on the concentration of contaminants. Soil gas data areused in preference to direct soil measurements of VOCs, as outlined inMcAFB's Soil Gas Consensus Statement (1992). The geologic model wasintegrated with the contaminant plume model to estimate the mass ofcontaminants, relying on the assumption that the gas, liquid, and solid phasesare in equilibrium. As stated in the Soil Gas Consensus Statement, theaccuracy of estimating soil VOC concentrations using soil gas data has not

2 SiE SPECIFIC DOCUMENT IC 7


Secton 2

PRL S-34

jW .0 .

00 00

0 0*%*0 101

0 IC 7

0 000 06 ~S Lcto

* 0 01S5olm sitee

C7 03,1C7

M Pbotographs

SffE SPECIFI OWActNdT IC 7 3

Engineerlng EAluation-Cost AnasUs

Section 2

Sw-- im enmq I

IC 7 bavuwy

F..gure 2-2 mlm

ICof 7Detaile

I---3 @9

Si00e00at dimuiu0

Wff 1 "f

MapM

been verified. McAFB has initiatcd limited studies to compare coilocated soilgas and soil samples that are specially preserved in the field. Results fromthese studies may require modifications to the equilibrium-based approach tomass estimating being used at this time. It is known that this type ofequilibrium-based mass calculation underestimates the mass in the zoneswhere there is free product, and it appears to overestimate the mass in vapor-dominated zones.

Geostatistical analysis was applied to develop models for the first threecontaminant spreading centers listed on page 2. All three spreading centers

4 SITE SPECIFIC DOCMwI IC 7


Section 2

sit ID Alternative Historical Chemicals Current StatusDesignation Usage of Concern

PRL-L-5B Industrial Received wastewater Paint, paint ActiveWastewater Une from painting, paint remover, solvent(IWL) removal, solvent cleaning

and other operations(1953-present)

PRL-L-6 IWL Received wastewater Paint Solvents Activefrom chemical Iaboratoiy.degreaser and spraypaint booth, and awashrack for steamcleaning air conditioners

PRL-L-9 Drainage ditch Received treated VOCs?wastewater from IWTPNo. 4 (1957-mid 1960's)

PRL-S-5 IWTP No. 2 In operation from Paint residues, oils, All the above-ground1916-1976 solvents, and metals structures have been

dismantled and thearea w/surroundinglocations have beencovered w/asphaltpavement.

PRL-S-34 A portion of the Vehicle repair, degreaser TCE, methv/ene Building 852 is beingsite is Building 652 and paint boom. choride, fuel, and refurbished, the

washrack steam ceaning motor oils, hydraulic degreaser is no longeroperations fluids, paint waste in use, the paint spray

booth and exteriorwaahracks have beenremoved.PRL-S-35 Building 654 Park airplanes and tractor VOCs

trailers (1946-1949),house antifreeze. dieselfuel. and oil tanks (1971),solvent spray booth(1965-1961)

SA-7 Building 650 Tanker fueling, Fuels Hazardous materialsunderground JP-4 and staging areaJP-5 tanks, waehracks.hazardous materials,s-aini area

SA-1 1 Underground gasoline Fuels? Storage tank wasstorage tank emptied in 1986

SA-14 Drainage ditch Received effluient from VOCs Now covered Tjabe 2-1ITWPs No. 2 & No. 4. w/asphtlt pavement BackgroundBuilding 664. and others Ia on

InfonmathonSA-18 Fenced-in oil storage yard Now covered s at

wlalt pavement fo 7

References: Radian 1990a, 1990b, 1990c, and 1990d

SITE SPECFiC DOCUMENT IC7


Section 2

appear to contain a core of contamination that reaches the water table, and inat least the washrack and the IWL plumes, there may be core zoats ofdissolved VOCs and free product VOCs. Surrounding these core zones arevapor-dominated plumes that apparently spread outward by diffusion and arenow commingled and overlapping. Contaminant mass in the spreading centerat Building 654 is much smaller than at the other two areas and a core zone ofvery high contamination may not exist.

* Existing extraction wells near the core zone of the washrack and 1WLplumes at building 652 (PRL S-34) will be used for SVE removal of VOCs.

* Additional testing and operation using existing extraction wells will focuson the dispersed portion of these plumes outside the core zone.

0 No additional extraction wells will be installed to remove contaminantsfrom the plume near Building 654 (PRL S-35). Operation of the otherextraction wells in the vicinity could result in collateral removal ofcontaminants.

Investigation Results

Pre-1990 investigations in the general area of IC 7 were not directed towardsVOC characterization; rather they consisted of a search for a scrap metal burialpit and an investigation of the integrity of the IWL. In 1990, 148 shallow soilgas samples (depths less than 10 feet) were collected within the boundaries ofIC 7. Follow-up work during 1992 and 1993 consisted of 135 borings fromwhich 249 soil gas samples were extracted and analyzed.

The 249 soil gas sampling locations and soil VOC analyses (concentrated inabout 10 acres) define the nature and extent of contamination in the 15.5 acresthat constitute IC 7. Of the soil gas samples, 63 percent were collected atdepths less than 35 feet, 25 percent were between 35 and 62 feet, and12 percent were from below 62 feet to the water table.

In the vicinity of IC 7, there are six groundwater monitor wells that are in thegeneral downgradient direction from IC 7. It is likely that contaminationreported from these wells is derived from both IC 7 and IC 1, but because ofthe complex pattern of groundwater movement (historic pumping) and theproximity of these two areas to each other, the contributions from the twoareas must be assessed together.

Groundwater is contaminated primarily by trichloroethene (TCE),tetrachloroethene (PCE), and chloroform. Based on data collected since 1986,the A zone aquifer concentrations have ranged from not detected to 3,500 gg/L

6 SITE SPECIFIC DOCUMENT IC 7

Engineering Etaluation-Cost Analysis

Section 2

for TCE, not detected to 370 gg/L for PCE, and not detected to 1.8 jag/L forchloroform. A Hydropunch sample collected near one of the suspectedsources contained 19,000 lag/L TCE and 2,900 pag/L PCE. In the B zone, TCEwas reported once at the detection limit of 0.2 gig/L, and in the C zone, TCE,PCE, and chloroform were all reported at less than 1 LAg/L from one roundof sampling.

The nearest upgradient monitor wells are located about 700 feet north-northwest of IC 7. Groundwater from these wells primarily contains TCE (notdetected to 7.1 g±g/L) and DCE12C (not detected to 4.9 tag/L) in the A, B, andC zones. High soil gas contaminant concentrations in the vadose zone arepresent to the water table at IC 7. Therefore, it is likely that the washrack andIWL plumes, and the plume emanating from Building 654 (PRL S-35) aresources contributing to groundwater contamination beneath OU B.

Soil gas permeability tests were performed in OU B (IC 1 and IC 7) (Radian,1993a). Information obtained will be used to support the design for the SVEsystem. Results of the soil gas permeability test follow:

"* The mean permeability is 40 darcies for all piezometer nests using VW-4 asthe pumping well (near the IWL source) and assuming a stratum thicknessof about 80 feet.

"* The mean permeability is 42 darcies for all piezometer nests using VW-5 asthe pumping well (near washrack source).

"* There is little apparent difference in permeability between silts and sands.

"* The average radius of influence is 201 feet for well VW-4 and 211 feet forwell VW-5.

Soil gas samples were quantitatively analyzed by several methods, includingFPID (field gas chromatography [GC] using a photo ionization detector), FECD(field GC using an electron capture detector), SGVOC (field GC using bothdetectors), and EPA method TO-14 (GC/MS off-site laboratory full scan). Notall samples were analyzed by the same methods nor were they analyzed for allthe constituents identified in table 2-2 (includes data from both phase I and IIfield efforts). Method TO-14 was used to investigate the most completespectrum of compounds in 22 samples collected throughout IC 7 and was usedon duplicate samples to validate the other methods.

The results of the soil gas sampling from 1992 and 1993 indicate that of the48 compounds looked for, 23 were never detected (analyzed for by TO-14only), 10 were detected occasionally (defined as being observed in less than

SWE SPECIFC DOCUMENT IrC 7


Section 2

M e tho d 1 1 -1 4 M o rne d P 0 M e th o d F E C O M e th o d 9 G O C

Anel"1 Mak Wu De F M. MM I~ OW D M. MM CW I Del M. e W b IUDe

T C E 1,40 0 .0 0 0 1 7 .0 0 0 2 2 2 0 2 .9A0M 0. 1 3 2 0 7 1 9 9 1 , 6 0 0 .0 0 0 5 .3 1 1 3 1 0 7

PCE 2.300.000 670 22 15 6.0000 I1 207 141 630.0 6.0 113 96DCEI2C 430.000 330 22 1 8 l 10 206 193 1__0-0 23 106 38

UNI( 3.300-000 60 483 63 300.000 100 483 10l

DCEII 50 420 22 5 6,40 0 10 171 156 1

FC l13 260.000 420 22 10 390=000 25 178 117 230D000 130 101 8

VC 220.0]0 39 206 131 110 =900 S66 000 101 2

DCE12 "r 1.0)0 11 208 126 12.0O0 11 101 2

8z 2.400 2o.4o 22 I 2.500 12 208 122 16 0f 310 101 4

__ME 19.000 17,00D0 22 2 6.900 10 206 48 220.000 14 102 14

Table 2-3a CYCI. 960o 96 22 1 - - lW 24 147 20Commonly xYLMP 1.5 .ooo I1.0o.000 22 2 160.900 11 206 IS 10 10 1 1Detected TCLME 60 160 22 2 3,-•- 3 t, 207 81Analytes -XVP -- - -3.000 10 101 10

(ppbv) DCA .2 26.000 25,00 22 2

Mtllod r0-14 Maled hPIP Mlleod P rCD Mlhlod SOVOC

Arm" Mmx 141 0b, Det Mmx MM JONIe Mm MMIOe Ib DeO Mm MMi Cf Deo

XYLO 0 3 22 2 5 26 206 11 &7W 300 2W7 2 SW 16 101TCME 600 180 22 2

TCAII 1 ___ 760 760O 271 1 35 __CYHEXANE 82,000 79.000 22 2 3.700 3.400 2 3

Table 2-3b 2.500.000 720.W00 36 3UNK3 2.700=0 70.=00 40 3Rarely E82 V0 o.00 20.000 22

D e te c te d S TY 42 .o0 o 2 00 0 o 22 2Analytes TMB135 390.00 170.0 22 2(ppbv), < 10% TMO124 720O 3900,o 22 2

o f A l l A n a l y z e d uf A D E N 5 .1 0 o 5 .1 o o 2 2 1Samples Il LN I6,WOW -%60 22 1Meho I r~4

M1111hd Mq Method FEW

Methodl 0O

Table 2-3c O leNlbrof abt Cbsus N d ObsUv65on b 0~ obeedWUs NUMW 01 OburdwOuMA nalytes N ever T rAII 22 36Detected uWO 22

ACE VC OCP13C 0CSZI2

Table 2-3dl S=l PCI 14 TC8124 CLEAA d ditional C eLOROPR FCII TCA112 CLMEA nalytes Never DCAI 1 EDO Tom C.ZDetected Using DCOZ13 DCPA12 PoP CIN

On!TO 4 ____ - CA DCPiST 008214 IMO n ly TS-14S C c DOCUM ENT IC,


Engineering Evaluation-Cost Anabs

Section 2

10 percent of analyzed samples), and 15 compounds were detected commonly,regardless of analytical method. Also identified were 3 unknowns (excludedfrom the above tally), one of which occurs commonly and is sometimespresent in high concentrations (maximum reported concentration is3,300 ppmv). The most commonly observed compounds and those withthe highest concentrations are chlorinated VOCs, but some fuel-derivedcompounds are also present.

A quality review has been performed on the phase I chemical analysis of soilgas data used (Radian, 1993b) and based on quality control sample results, itwas concluded that the data are valid, with some exceptions. For the fieldlaboratory determinations, the quality was judged to be within the acceptancecriteria for screening of volatile compounds in soil gas.

For the TO-14 results, quality was judged to be within the acceptance criteriafor the analysis of volatile compounds in soil gas by that method. The TO-14results can be used for confirmation of field laboratory soil gas results, and foridentification of non-target analytes.

Vinyl chloride (VC) was commonly detected during the first phase ofinvestigation using the FPID method. The phase I data assessment (Radian,1993b) indicates that VC was misidentified (second column GC conformationwas not performed) and that all reported values are qualified as unusable.However, VC results reported as not detected are accurate. In 22 samplesanalyzed by method TO-14, VC was not detected above the method detectionlimit of 1,400 ppbv (MVC in table 2-2d). Based on these observations, it isassumed that the positive VC results reported under the method FPID are falsepositive results.

During phase I, freon 113 was correctly identified, but quantification wasinaccurate; all phase I results are qualified as estimates (Radian, 1993).

The phase II quality assurance/quality control report is pending.

Geologic Data InterpretationThe following geological interpretations are based on the 1992 and 1993 data.A geological model was constructed for an area starting north of Building 652and extending to the northern edge of IC 7. While the model could not beextended to cover all of IC 7 due to lack of data, it does cover the area of mostsignificant contamination.

At IC 7, four silt and three sand units are recognized. Although the units are ofvariable thickness, they appear to be relatively continuous both in the east-

SITE SPECF•C DOCUMBT IC 7


Section 2

west and north-south directions (figure 2-3). The geological interpretation ismuch stronger to a depth of about 40 feet below ground (elevation about20 feet above sea level) since it uses information from approximately120 borings located north of Building 652. Below that depth, borings aremore widely spaced and the continuity of units is less well established.

In the top 40 feet, two silt and two sand/silty sand units are interbedded witheach other and with several clay lenses of limited extent. The clay lenses arepresent primarily near the surface and generally cannot be traced for morethan 40 to 50 feet in any direction. Less than 4 percent of the modeled volumeis occupied by clay. In the north-south direction, both the shallow silt and thesand units appear to be continuous for at least 200 to 300 feet. The units arenot uniform in thickness, ranging from less than 5 feet to about 15 feet. Atdepth greater than 40 feet below the surface, a silt unit measuring about30 feet in thickness is observed in a number of borings that are located justnorth of Building 652. Below that another sand and another silt unit completethe stratigraphic picture to the water table.

Soil Gas Data InterpretationSoil gas analyses from 249 sample locations in 135 soil borings comprise thedata base for modeling the subsurface soil gas distribution at IC 7. More than60 percent of the data originates from depths shallower than about 35 feet.Review of raw concentration data for individual compounds based onfrequency of occurrence and maximum concentrations indicates that thecompounds TCE, PCE, and DCE12C (figures 2-4a, b and 2-4c, respectively) canbe modeled. Although other compounds are commonly present, they are ofsuch low concentrations that it would not be useful to make volumetricestimates. Contoured distributions for FC1 13 (figure 2-4d), methyl benzene,DCEI1, and DCE12T are illustrated in figure 2-5. Of these compounds, onlyTCE and DCE12C show wide dispersion at concentrations greater than20 ppmv; each appears to be associated with multiple source areas. Thecompounds PCE and FC113 (estimated concentrations) at concentrationsgreater than 20 ppmv are more restricted in their distribution; each appears tobe associated with a single contaminant spreading center, but not necessarily aknown source area (figures 2-4b and d).

It should be noted that the distributive modeling of soil gas concentrationsresults in isoconcentration lines being displayed both laterally and verticallyaway from actual data points. Near the edges of the investigated area and atelevations lower than approximately 28 feet (depth of 35 feet below ground)concentrations are projected based on the degree of correlation established forall soil gas samples in the data set.


Section 2

Figure 2-3IC --- hrcc-

I )ipn)i'inaIZOgl

Alhclel o.



Section 2

Based on contaminant distributions, the area north of Building 652 was dividedinto three zones for modeling presumed contaminant spreading centers(shaded areas in figure 2-4a). Two of these spreading centers are locatednorthwest and northeast of Building 652 and their plumes overlap. Within thearea of overlapping plumes, there may be additional sources that were notmodeled separately. The third center is located south of PRL-S-35 (northernblock in figure 2-6).

Figures 2-4c and 2-4d for DCE12C and FC113 indicate that there is a majorcontaminant spreading center north of Building 652 near the westerntermination of an underground feeder line to the IWL identified as PRL L-6 andat the approximate location of a degreaser washrack and sump (hereaftercalled washrack). Although the plume is best outlined by DCE12C and FC113(suggesting an east-west elongation parallel to the IWL piping), TCE and PCEcontribute the bulk of the contaminant mass. Contaminant concentrationsdecrease with depth, as indicated in the left plume in figure 2-7, this figureshows more detailed information than in figure 2-6; note changes in color-coding. The highest concentrations are generally present to a depth of about50 to 60 feet. Overall, FC113 decreases more rapidly than the othercontaminants modeled and TCE decreases less rapidly than the othercompounds.

The second major plume (hereafter called the IWL source or spreading center,right plume in figure 2-7), is located about 100 feet east of the washrack plumeand just north of the feeder line from Building 652 and the IWL. Thespreading center, so called because it is not near a known or suspected sourceother than the IWL, is primarily characterized by high concentrations of PCEand TCE (figures 2-4a and 2-4b) with significantly lower concentrations ofDCE12C and FC113. The latter two compounds appear to be spreading awayfrom the center near the northwest comer of Building 652, as indicated by theregular decrease in concentrations with distance from that area (figures 2-4cand 2-4d). Locally elevated concentrations of toluene, DCE11, and DCE12Tare centered in this general area, but are not coincident with the PCE/TCEplume (figure 2-5); they occur just south of the PCE/TCE plume. Maximumconcentrations for any of these compounds rarely exceed 10 ppmv in soil gas,although they are widely present at concentrations below 1 ppmv throughoutthe investigated area. Within IC 7, these compounds appear to beconcentrated only in one area near the junction of the feeder piping with thetwo main segments of the IWL northeast of Building 652 (figure 2-5).

In the central portion of the IWL spreading center, concentrations of both PCEand TCE remain at or above 1,000 ppmv to the water table. Highconcentrations of PCE appear to reach their largest areal extent at about 50 feetbelow ground, whereas TCE remains confined to about the same cylindrical


Engineemlng Evasluation-Cost A nabnU

Section 2

45 Feet

MCEI

Figure 2-4aDist~ribution of 0TCE (ppmv) inSoil Gas 12-0P-- ORegardless of M o

Soil Type

PcE

Figure 2-4bDistribution of*PCE (ppmv) inSoil Gas -1joCRegardles ofSoil Type -----

* m~~0 tm~~umg... .Mh dmmuh

03f alea W. -le

12 SITE SPECIMi DOCMENT IC 7

Engineering BuWuation-CostA nabatsi

Section 2

15 Feet -25 Feet

SO1

srCMEFI o~e~ c71


Section 2

45 Feet 15 Feet

BICE 12C\ f..iFigure 2-4c .i .Distribution of .DCE12C(ppmv) in SoilGas Regardless -_of Soil Type "I_

0

FCII3 11

Figure 2-4dDistribution ofFC113 (ppmv)in Soil GasRegardless ofSoil Type


Engineering Evaluation-Cost AnabyU

Section 2

RZ

S,

DCEII DCEII2T

Figure 2-5IC 7--

SDistributionof Toluene

(BME),DCEZI, and

DCE12T inSoil Gas(ppmv)Regardless ofSoil Type

SITE SPECIFIC XOouuMT Ic 7 15


Section 2

volume to this depth. At concentrations below 1,000 ppmv, the dispersionof PCE appears to be more restricted than the dispersion of TCE, and thebulk of the PCE mass may actually be derived from only one spreading center(IWL center).

Outside the central zone of high contamination (>1,000 ppmv) TCE is presentat about five times the concentration of PCE; the 100 ppmv isoconcentrationline for TCE roughly coincides with the 20 ppmv isoconcentration line of PCE.The shape of the isoconcentration lines for TCE at lower concentrations areelongated in a northeast-southwest direction, whereas the lines for PCE aremore nearly circular. The elongation of the TCE isoconcentration lines may beexplained, in part, by potential secondary sources, as discussed below.

Outside the central contamination zone, isoconcentration surfaces appear to benearly vertical and concentration gradients are steep, similar to the situation atIC 1. For example, PCE decreases about 500 to 600 ppmv over a horizontaldistance of 100 feet. The patterns for TCE are more complex and less regular,most likely because of two or more spreading centers for this compound.However, the distribution of contaminants suggests the same diffusionalmechanism of dispersion, largely independent of observed soil typethroughout the investigated area of IC 7. Therefore, the conceptual model forthe overlapping washrack and the IWL plumes is the same as for the mainplume at IC 1, consisting of a central core zone that very likely contains VOCsdissolved in water and potentially free product of several VOCs, surrounded bya vapor dominated plume that may not be in equilibrium with all the retainedmoisture and the soil particles. Average concentrations of TCE and PCE nearthe centers of contamination at both IC 1 and IC 7 are very similar (between1,000 and 2,000 ppmv).

The contaminant spreading center near the southeast comer of Building 654(PRL S-35) is primarily defined by the presence of TCE and DCE12C. OnlyTCE was modeled, as shown in figure 2-8. Contamination at a cutoff of100 ppmv covers an area of approximately 0.6 acres and results in anestimated mass of TCE of less than 100 kg. The highest averageconcentrations of DCE12C (20 to 40 ppmv) are coincident with the highestTCE concentrations, but are less widely dispersed. Maximum concentrationsare present to about 40 feet below ground (figure 2-8) but a column of TCEcontaining greater than 100 ppmv reaches the water table. Based on therelatively small estimated quantity of contamination, no new extraction wellswill be installed near PRL S-35 at this time.

Other potential spreading centers may be present, as indicated by areas oflocally elevated TCE concentrations underneath PRL S-5 and along the westside of Building 652 (data to depth of 35 feet below ground). Cleanup of


Section 2

Figure 2-6IC -1/'(m

200 ft t as.brack

(Il/cl• •114

I'ltioll

Sca ~ ILand /it%


00pY AVAILABLE TO DTIC DOES NOT PERWT FUL LEGIBLE REPRODUCTION,

Section 2

Figure 2-IC-1 -ihrc-

.lodcI (?f 701

fPlume (

Q ash rackzt~hi Plumv


COPY AVAILABLE TO) DnTC DOES NOT PERIET FUJLLY LEGIELE REPPAODIUnTOlA,

Section 2

Figure 2-8

?/ IR : pia

hs U estC mss5ec ~CtollP

SITE SPECIFIC DOCUMEN' IC 7

COPY AVAILABU 1'0 1C TR; WL6 WQT PERMIT FULLY LEGIBLE REPRODUUI T OM


Section 2

these areas carn be considered at a later time, either as separate EE/CA removalactions, or as part of long-term remediation. Contamination associatedspecifically with the two IWL segments (PRL L-5B and PRL L-6) cannot beisolated in the vicinity of the three major spreading centers discussedpreviously. However, near the southern extent of IC 7, along both sides ofBuilding 652, and north of SA-18, are borings that are close to the IWL and thatcontain low concentrations (generally much less than 10 ppmv) of most of thecontaminants that are recognized in IC 7.

Contaminant Mass CalculationsContaminant mass may be estimated for individual compounds using the soilgas concentration of an analyte based on the assumption that in-situequilibrium exists among the gas, liquid, and solid phases. The equationrequires additional parameters that are either measured or assumed (seetable 2-3 for parameter list and values used) and volumetric estimates of soiltypes present. At IC 7, TCE, PCE, and DCE12C were modeled to obtaindistributed averaged concentrations (table 2-4). Based on available data fromthe geological modeling and the appropriate physical and chemical parametersfor each of the major recognized soil types, contaminant mass calculations canbe made for only two soil types: silt and sand.

Due to differences in the degree to which data can be extrapolated, thevolume bounded by the geologic model is considerably smaller than thevolume for chemical contaminants. fu estimate mass, specific soil typevolumes were estimated based on the geologic model. Although clays, siltysands, silts, and sands were represented in the model, only two soil types areused for the mass estimates. Since total organic carbon was not detected inany soils above the detection limit of 0.1 percent, clays and silts werecombined, and all sands and silty sands were combined. The total volume ofsoil north of Building 652 is represented by about 46 percent silt (of whichabout 4 percent is clay) and 54 percent sand/silty sand. Subsequentcontaminant mass calculations by soil type, represented ais silt and sand, arebased on these percentages.

Volume estimates were made for the washrack plume separately from the IWLplume to the northeast of Building 652. The plane scplir-Aung the two centerswas arbitrarily drawn to separate the northeastern plume characterized bya volume of soil that contains nearly coincident PCE and TCE isopleths of1,000 ppmv and very low FC113 concentrations (< 10 ppmv). Table 2-5 showsthat the three contaminants are more widely dispersed in IC 7 than in IC 1.

SITE SPECFIC DOCUMENT IC 7 17


Section 2

Soil Type

Parameter

Sift Sand*

TOC 0.10 "" 0.03

Koc (DCE12C) 49 49

Koc (TCE) 126 126

Koc (PCE) 364 364Table 2-4 H (DCE12C) 0.123 0.123Soil VolumeESilatelund H (TCE) 0.297 0.297

Average Soil H (PCE) 0.546 0.546

Gas Ow .34 .23Concentrations, OA .16 .24HomogenousGeologic Model PB 1.36 1.44

Reference: Radian, 1993c

" Sand includes all samples identified as SP, SW, SM and mixtures (SP/ML or ML/SP, SM/SP, etc.)TOC was not detected in any samples above the detection limit of 0. 1%Values for sift and sand were assigned arbitrarly

Definitions:TOC = Total organic carbon (percent)

Koc = Soil partitioning coefficient (ml/g)H = Henrys law constant (dimensionless)

Ow = Water satuated soil porosity

OA = Air saturated porosity

PB = Bulk density of soil (g/cc)

Cr = Soil VOC concentration, mg/kg

C0 = Soil gas VOC concentration, ng/m

Equilibrium Equation:

COr = 0.001 Ca[0.01xpsxKocxTOCxlIH+Owx 1/H+OA]x lI/ps

18 ,SUE SPECIFIC DOCUMENT IC 7

EnRineerlng Evaluation-Cost Analysis

Section 2

TCE P"t OEl2CCutoff

Concerutat Am of Contvine Am of Contained Am of Contane(ppmv) ConteminulO lme of PM ContEnlnulion M oosof TCE Contuuleudon Mses of PCE

(Acre-) (kg) (Acres) (kq) (Ac-e) (kg)Table 2-5

I > 3.9 895 > 3.8 54o 3.4 203 Masfor100 1.6 507 12 487 0.6 131 Wasbrack and

S00 0.5 311 0.3 252 0.1 27 MWL Plumes1000 02 77 0.06 132 - - Combined

Only about 70 percent of the mass is accounted for at the 100 ppmv cutoff(table 2-6) in the washrack spreading center, as compared to about 90 percentat IC 1 for the same cutoff concentration. At the IWL spreading center, nearly80 percent of the contamination is contained inside the 100 ppmv cutoff.When the washrack and the IWL plumes are combined, the total mass of TCE,PCE, and DCE12C is about 1,650 kg at the 1 ppmv cutoff for each compound.The area inside this cutoff concentration is greater than 3.9 acres as determinedby the extent of TCE contamination which, at that cutoff, is dispersed throughthe largest area.

Contained Mae (kg) _ ___ m ofC,•11ent1tlo1 Toem

(PPMV) TCE PCE DCE12C TOtal

WaShreckSource

1 524 182 130 845 100100 346 147 99 591 70

500 184 50 24 258 311000 37 - - 37 4

Source1 371 364 64 719 100

100 252 340 32 024 78

500 127 202 3 332 42

1000 40 132 - 172 22

PRL S-35Table 2-6

1 ei1 - - 181 100 MaSz of

20 127 - - 127 70 Contammnahon100 - - 63 35 at T7ree

Spreadings_ _ __ _ __ T J71Centers

SIT SPECMI DOCIJUff IC 7 1

Engineering Evaluation-Cost AnalysiS

Secton 2

Three potential surface and near-surface sources have been identified in IC 7as shown in figure 2-9:

1 WLfl SOm 0 ~Syslm

PRLL 5-3

ofowode BOal

Prinipa conamiant areTCE PCE DmomC and FCI13.)

20 ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ g SIESEqI OUETI


Section 2

The IWL junction with the feeder line from the washrack area. A soilcolumn containing PCE and TCE in excess of 1,000 ppmv each extends tothe water table. The surface area of the central contamination is confinedto somewhat less than 0.1 acres.

* The TCE plume near the southeast side of Building 654. Contaminantmass is probably less than 25 percent of that contained in the washrack orIWL sources. Contamination in this plume reaches the water table, butconcentrations in the central plume area are generally less than 300 ppmv,primarily TCE and DCE12C. The surface area containing the highestcontamination (>200 ppmv TCE) covers about 0.2 acres.

There are two additional areas where contamination locally exceeds 100 ppmvof one or another of the commonly detected VOC contaminants, principallyTCE. Contamination was not sampled at depths greater than 35 feet.

ConclusionsThe washrack and IWL spreading centers will be the focus of the removalaction as IC 7. In both areas, a central core of contamination (not sampled) ispostulated to contain VOCs dissolved in water and potentially as free product.The horizontal dimensions of this core zone are unknown. In the washrackarea, the core zone is most likely located near the drain/sump associated withthe washrack near the end of the IWL feeder pipe. For the IWL plume, thejunction of the feeder piping with the main segment of the IWL (PRL L6) is themost likely location for core zone contamination. Borings about 25 feet fromthe junction of the piping may have sampled soils peripheral to the core zonecontamination (PCE exceeding 3,000 ppmv at several depths in both borings).As at IC 1, maximum reported concentrations in all borings are well belowexpected saturated vapor concentrations for the commonly detected VOCs.

The core zones could contain substantially larger masses of VOCs than thoseestimated for the vapor-dominated portions of the plumes using equilibriumassumptions. Based on observations at Site S, in OU D, and assuming somefree product is present, the mass in the core zone could exceed estimatedmasses by at least one order of magnitude.

Removal action is recommended initially for the core zone at the washrack andthe IWL spreading centers using the existing extraction wells. The extractionwell for the washrack area (VW-5) is screened from 20 to 100 feet belowground. The extraction well for the IWL area is screened at three horizons:48 to 52 feet, 64 to 68 feet, and 89 to 93 feet. Five additional extraction wellsare located in zones of intermediate or low soil gas contamination (figure 2-10)and will be used for testing and operation, as appropriate.

Srll SPECIC DOCMENT IC? 21

Engineering Evaluation -Cost Analysis

Section 2

A number of boreholes in the general area of the two spreading centerscontain intervals (generally between 50 and 60 feet below ground) wherereported soil gas concentrations were orders of magnitude lower than in eitherthe interval above or below. The reason for these exceptionally largevariations in concentrations is not understood. It appears to be unrelated tosoil type, but one possible explanation may be that at these sample locationsthe soil was water-saturated and essentially contained no vapor-filled porespaces, resulting in low reported soil gas concentrations. The distribution ofthese zones of low soil gas concentrations should be mapped beforeconsidering SVE operations.

Removal of contaminants from the vapor-dominated plume outside the corezone will be phased in, as appropriate. This operation will use existing,wide,, spaced wells with large screen intervals if it can be demonstrated thatthe contaminant mass outside the core zone is essentially contained in the soilgas, with a minor fraction of the total mass derived from the sorbed anddissolved phases.

100

VW-15

Formerdegreaser -VW4washrack 0

Figure 2-10 VW-17)pLocation ofExtractionWells inRelation to the 0 IoD

Distribution of VW-14- 9t 652

TCE V 652 -

22 S"TE SPECI DOCUMENT I 7


Section 3JUSTIFICATION OF SVE REMOVAL ACTION

A s discussed in section 4 of the General Evaluation Document, justificationof a removal action using SVE as the presumptive remedy is dependent

upon site-specific information. The first consideration is an evaluation ofthe feasibility of applying SVE at the site, which is based on satisfyingcriteria regarding contaminant volatility, air permeability in soil, and depthof contamination.

At IC 7, the primary contaminants are TCE and PCE, both of which meet thephysical-chemical requirements to classify them as volatile compounds. A soilgas permeability was recently conducted in IC 7. The average air permeabilitywas estimated to range from 30 to 40 darcies for the fully screened well, and200 to 280 darcies for the partially screened well. All values exceed thecriterion of 10- darcy by several orders of magnitude; this indicates a veryfavorable condition for SVE application (Radian, 1993a). Finally, asdemonstrated by soil gas measurements, the depth of VOC contamination inthe vadose zone is approximately 100 feet; this is greater than the thresholdof 5 feet.

The second consideration is an evaluation of the need for removal action.The soil-gas contaminant plumes underlying the washrack and IWL spreadingcenters include concentrations of both TCE and PCE greater than 1,000 ppmv.These plumes are a continuing source of contamination to groundwaterunderlying the site. In addition, screening risk analysis indicates there ispotential for an unacceptably high level of risk associated with the observedhigh concentrations of TCE and PCE if these contaminants are not removed(Radian, 1993d). This analysis has produced two screening results: a cancerrisk of 1.7x10 3 and a hazard index of 11. Screening generally overestimatesthe actual risk because it relies on conservative assumptions when actualvalues are not known (MITRE, 1993). Nonetheless, the screening results aresignificantly higher than the generally accepted values for cancer risk (10-6 to10") and hazard index (1). Because of this, the washrack and IWL areas arecandidates for removal action.

In summary, using the criteria set out in the General Evaluation Document, thewashrack and IWL areas have been determined to be candidate sites forremoval actions using SVE as the presumptive remedy.

SrrE SPI DOCUME IC 7 23


Section 4REMOVAL ACTION OBJECTIVES

Scope

The removal action is aimed at removing VOCs from the washrack plume andthe IWL plume near Building 652. This includes the initial extraction of VOCsfrom the core zone, followed by testing and operation of extraction wells inareas outside the core zone.

ARARS

Chemical-specific ARARs: As identified in the General Evaluation Document

Action-specific ARARs: As identified in the General Evaluation Document

Location-specific ARARs: None



Section 5CONCEVIIUAL DESIGN AND COST

Conceptual DesignThe initial removal action for IC 7 involves the use of at least two existingextraction wells near the two core zones, which are approximately 100 feetapart. The removal action could involve as many as five additional wells thatare outside the core zone. The wells near the core zone reach the top of thecapillary zone, thereby limiting this removal action to the vadose zone.Integrated groundwater removal will not e considered.

The vacuum system for IC 7 is s,- 1 at 1,500 to 2,000 scfm total flow rate toaccommodate any number of extraction wells that may prove to be necessary.For this analysis, two positive displacement blowers, each nominally rated at800 scfm, were selected. Two blowers permit operating flexibility (e.g.,cycling operation in one zone or well pair) and also increase the overallsystem availability. A maximum applied vacuum of seven inches mercury wasidentified. Blower turndown will attain optimum vacuum/flow rates.

Site surface characteristics are such that a concrete foundation pad will likelybe required for the aboveground treatment equipment. Location of theaboveground equipment to minimize collection system piping and utilityhookup requirements would be midway between the IWL and washrack sites.

Site characterization and contaminant mass estimates indicate that thecontaminant mass for the combined plumes may be 3,600 pounds or more ofVOCs. Using recent experience at the OU D Site S Treatability Study, whereover 46,000 pounds of contaminants were extracted in eight weeks ofoperation, total project duration at IC 7 should not exceed six months, andmight be completed in as little as three months. The preferred option forvapor treatment is the base metal, fluid bed catalytic oxidation system. Thissystem will effectively accommodate the expected high initial contaminantloadings along with any vinyl chloride. Experience at Site S also indicates thatvinyl chloride is removed quickly, so if vinyl chloride present at IC 7, thethermal system will be able to treat it. Given the potential for limited durationof operation at IC 7, changeover to carbon is not recommended.

Cost EstimateThe itemized cost estimate for remediating IC 7 is shown in table 5-1. IC 7 islocated in an industrial area, so utilities should be present near the location ofthe SVE equipment. Existing extraction wells will be used, so no wellconstruction costs are shown in table 5-1. A base metal, fluid bed catalyticoxidizer with a scrubber is recommended to control emissions and to destroythe chlorinated contaminants. An estimated 30,000 pounds of contaminants isexpected to be removed in six months of SVE operation. If the SVEequipment is purchased, the removal project is estimated to cost $1 million.

E SPECIFIC DOCWNT IC 7 25


Section 5

Item Design Basis Unit Cost item Cost

Site Preparation:Gas Connection 200 feet of 2-inch polyurethane $7.50/foot $1,500

line

Electrical Connection 200 feet of buried $5.00/foot 1,000

4-inch conduit

Transformer 12 kv to 440 v unit $13,000 13,000

Water Connection 200 feet of buried $14.00/foot 2,8002-inch PVC pipe

Equipment:Vacuum blowers 2 blowers rated 500-800 scfm $17,000 34,000

at 7-12 inches of Hg

Air-Water Separator 1 unit 2000 scfm rated at 18 $4,000 4,000inches of Hg

Manifold and Piping 500 feet of 4-8 inch PVC pipe, $30.00/foot 15,000fittings and support

Emission Control Catalytic oxidizer with scrubber $355,000 355,000System I

Engineering 10% of site and equipment cost 42,000

Moblization 10% of site and equipment cost 42,000

Total: $511,200

Ope•naton and 90% uptime, 648 Monf/y OperaftkgMaintenance: hours per month Cost:

Natural Gas 2,425 scfh $3.50/1.000 scf $5,500

Electricity 105 kw $.075/kWh 5,100

Water 617 gph $1.00/1,000 gal 400

Scrubber Chemicals 254 pph $350/ton 28,800

Waste Disposal 500 gph $3.00/1,000 gal 1,000

Testing and 1 stack test per month, 9 well $2,500/sample 25,000Monitoring analyses per month

Operating Labor 90 hours for 2 part-time techs $70/hour 6,300and part-time sample collector

Reporting 1 monthly operations report and $6,000/month 6,000prorated summary report

Table 5-4 Monbhy Operating Cost: $78,100

SVE CostEstimate for IC 7 Operating Cost for 6 Months: $468,600

26 SITE SPECFC DOCUMENT IC 7


Section 6IMPLEMENTATION PLAN FOR SVE REMOVAL ACTION

T he schedule for preparing the documents to support an SVE removal actionat IC 7 is shown in figure 6-1. The IC 7 draft final document was made

available for public comment on 1 September 1993. This is followed by a30-day public review period and a 15-day extension if requested, for a totalof 45 days. A 45-day period is planned for McAFB to respond to publiccomments, finalize the EE/CA, and prepare the responsiveness summary andthe action memorandum. The responsiveness summary addresses publiccomments and the action memorandum is the primary decision document forremoval action. All these documents will be placed in the InformationRepository and Administrative Record.

A schedule for implementing an SVE system is shown in figure 6-2 to illustratethe sequence of milestone events: design, procurement, off-site equipmentassembly, installation, operation, and termination. The SVE design will beginafter the date of contract award. An eight-month design period is planned forthe traditional design cycle of 10, 40, 90, and 100 percent design submittalsand reviews. A one-month interval between the completion of the design andthe beginning of equipment installation is allowed for equipment procurement.A three-month period is planned for equipment assembly, which can be doneoff-site, and a one-month period is planned for on-site installation. The periodof operation will be determined as part of the periodic reviews of SVE systemperformance, currently set for six-month intervals

The SVE removal action for IC 7 is part of a basewide removal action includingfive areas: IC 1, IC 7, OU C1, OU D/Site S, and OU D/Site 3. SVE equipmentwill be installed sequentially at these sites rather than at all sites concurrently.McAFB has not developed an integrated schedule for all five areas, but intendsto start the SVE system installation for the last of these five areas before1 October 1994.

McAFB is not liable for delays in any planned activity in the event of ForceMajeure, which is an unforeseen condition as described in the InteragencyAgreement among the Air Force, Region 9 of the U.S. Environmental ProtectionAgency, and the state of California.

1993 19945 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

Draft reviewand revision I re 6-1

Scbedule forCOETha h E&CA Site

Specificmeoact Document

for IC 7

SITE SPECIFIC DOCUMENT IC 7 27


Section 6

Contract (BeforeAward 1 October 1994)

Design M 4M W% I %IiProcurement

Off-siteequrnent

Figure 6-2 assembyGeneric InstallationSchedule for OperationImplementingan SVE System - . . . .

0 1 2 3 4 s 5 7 6 S 10 11 12 13 14 1 1 817 18

Months



REFERENCES

Heath, Ralph C., Basic Ground-Water Hydrology, U.S. Geological Survey Water

Supply Paper 2220 (1987).

McClellan Air Force Base, Soil Gas Consensus Statement, October 1992.

Radian Corporation, Operable Unit B Installation Restoration Program (IRP)Stage 3 Preliminary Assessment for PRL S-34, Draft for McClellan AFB/EM,California, April 1990a.

Radian Corporation, Operable Unit B Installation Restoration Program (IRP)Stage 3 Preliminary Assessment for PRL P-9, Draft for McClellan AFB/FM,California, April 1990b.

Radian Corporation, Operable Unit B Installation Restoration Program (IRP)Stage 3 Preliminary Assessment for PRL S-5, Draft for McClellan AFB/FM,California, April 1990c.

Radian Corporation, Operable Unit B Installation Restoration Program (IRP)Stage 3 Preliminary Assessment for PRL S-35, Draft for McClellan AFB/EM,California, April 1990d.

Radian Corporation, Technical Memorandum Results of Soil Gas PermeabilityTesting in Operable Unit B Investigation Cluster 1 and 7, August 1993a.

Radian Corporation, Installation Restoration Program (IRP) Operable Unit BRemedial Investigation Site Characterization Summary, Appendix A and B,February 1993b.

Radian Corporation, Transmittal of Pbysical Parameter and Chemical DataTables, March 1993c.

Radian Corporation, Transmittal of Risk Assessment Results, IC 1 and IC 7, letterreport to McAFB, 30 June 1993d.

SITE SPECIF DOCUMENT IC 7 29


GLOSSARY

Chemical Codes

ACE acetoneBRIKE bromomethaneBUTADIEN 1,3-butadiene, erythreneBZ benzeneBZLCL benzyl chlorideBZME tolueneC8N n-octanecHILOROPIR 2-chloro-1 ,3-butadieneCLBZ chlorobenzeneCLEA chioroethaneCLIME chioromethaneCO carbon monoxideC11CL carbon tetrachlorideCY]HUDANE cyclohexaneDCA1 1 1, 1-dichioroethaneDCA12 1 ,2-dichloroethaneDCBZ12 1 ,2-dichlorobenzeneDCBZ13 1 ,3-dichlorobenzeneDCBZ14 1 ,4-dichlorobenzeneDCE1 1 1 ,1-dichloroetheneDCE12C cis-1 ,2-dichloroetheneD)CE12T trans-I ,2-dichloroetheneDCP13C cis- 1,3-dichloropropeneDCP13T trans-i ,3-dichloropropeneDCPA12 1 ,2-dichloropropaneEBZ ethylbenzeneEDB 1,2-dibromoethane (ethylene dibromide)FC1 1 trichlorofluoromethaneFC113 orF113 1,1,2-trichloro-1,2,2-trifluoroethaneFC12 dichiorodifluoromethaneFC114 freon 114, dichiorotetrafluoroethaneMTLINa. methylene chlorideMVC vinyl chloride, monovinyichiorideNOx nitrogen oxidesPCA 1 ,1,2,2-tetrachloroethanePCE tetrachioroethenePROP propylene, propenesox Sulfur OxidesSTY styreneTBME bromoform

30 SITE SPECIFI DOCUMENT IC 7

Engineering Evaluation-Cost Analys

GLOSSARY

TCA111 1,1,1-trichloroethaneTCA112 1,1,2-trichloroethaneTCB124 1,2,4-trichlorobenzeneTCE trichloroetheneTCLME chloroformTMB124 1,2,4-trimethylbenzeneTMB135 1,3,5-trimethylbenzene (mesitylene)UNK unknown compoundsVC vinyl chlorideXYLMP m,p-xylene (sum of isomers)XYLO o-xylene (1,2-dimethylbenzene)XYLP p-xylene (1,4-dimethylbenzene)

General

ARAR Applicable or relevant and appropriaterequirement

cfm Cubic feet per minuteBE/CA Engineering Evaluation/Cost AnalysisEPA U.S. Environmental Protection AgencylAG Interagency AgreementIC Investigative dusterMIP Installation Restoration ProgramIWL Industrial waste linelWTP Industrial wastewater treatment plantMCAFB McClellan Air Force Baseou Operable Unitppb parts per billionppm parts per millionppmv parts per million by volumePRL Potential release locationsdm standard cubic feet per minute

VWE Soil vapor extractionSMAQMD Sacramento Metropolitan Air Quality

Management D6strictTOC Total organic carbonTRC Technical Review CommitteeVOC Volatile organic compound

WE SPECI DOCUT IC?7 31

ENIERIGEALAIN - DTICJP-5 tanks, waehracks. hazardous materials, s-aini area SA-1 1 Underground...

Documents

Transcript of ENIERIGEALAIN - DTICJP-5 tanks, waehracks. hazardous materials, s-aini area SA-1 1 Underground...