|
8
<br /> Why These Alternatives are Preferred Cleanup Alternatives will
<br /> Protect Public Health
<br /> EPA has established nine criteria for evaluating remedial alternatives at all
<br /> Superfund sites(See Figure 7 on page 9). The two most important are the abili- LLNL's preferred cleanup alterna-
<br /> ty to provide adequate public health and environmental protection,and com- tives for ground water and the unsatu-
<br /> pliance with Federal,State,and local requirements(ARARs—see Figure 7). rated soil will reduce any health risks
<br /> to
<br /> Although their comments have influenced the design and selection of alterna- Posed the site contaminants
<br /> $ $ "acceptable"levels. For a Superfund
<br /> tives throughout the$uperfund planning process to date,community and project,EPA aims to design and/or
<br /> State acceptance for the preferred alternatives will be formally taken into approve cleanup actions that reduce
<br /> account after public comment is received on the draft Final PRAP. an individual's risk of developing can-
<br /> LLNL applied these criteria to the remedial alternatives described in the cer to a chance that is somewhere
<br /> FeasibilityStud and selected referred alternatives that best meet these between one A considers
<br /> and one in
<br /> y P 1,000,000. EPA considers this to be an
<br /> criteria(see Figure 6,below). Although more expensive in the short-run "acceptable'risk range. Once the Liv-
<br /> than the other alternatives,the preferred remedial actions for ground water ermore site cleanup is complete,a per-
<br /> and the unsaturated soil: son's risk of developing cancer as a
<br /> • Are protective of human health and the environment, result of exposure to site contaminants
<br /> would fall within or be lower than
<br /> • Comply with ARARs, that range.
<br /> • Reduce the ability of the contaminants to migrate,
<br /> • Provide a permanent solution,and EPA believes that contaminants
<br /> • Would achieve a faster cleanup than the other alternatives. posing health risks within that range
<br /> will not result in adverse human
<br /> In addition,the preferred remedial actions for both the ground water and health affects if exposure was to occur.
<br /> the unsaturated soil use relatively new methods for either extraction or This is why,according to the evalua-
<br /> treatment: vacuum-induced venting for the unsaturated soil cleanup;and Hon described on this page,LLNL and
<br /> ultraviolet light/oxidation treatment for the ground water. Although not the regulatory agencies have conclud-
<br /> yet widely used in other Superfund site cleanups,these processes have ed that the preferred remedial actions
<br /> proven to be successful based on pilot studies conducted at LLNL over the will be fully protective of human
<br /> last three years. , health and the environment.
<br /> EPA EVALUATION CRITERIA
<br /> Next Steps
<br /> top After the November 6th communi-
<br /> REMEDIAL ALTERNATIVE/ f .e" a0� ty meeting and following the close of
<br /> TREATMENTOPTIONS ! F
<br /> the public comment period on the
<br /> °1N AR" "'N" PRAP and the Administrative Record,
<br /> sunPY,ebuuel.
<br /> .ow J%x LLNL and the regulatory agencies will
<br /> YmaNsiniil B,E.MF • o • • • • 11WY
<br /> •A�w,Ran'Ie.,F:c,o consider whether any changes to the
<br /> Y1°O preferred cleanup alternatives for the
<br /> aw ANnnan"a Ne., ground water and unsaturated soils
<br /> °°mP•"°'°°•°^• • • • • are necessary. LLNL will coordinate
<br /> i,Vleakalbn-°a.M ps !!
<br /> aM
<br /> onn.I.,TF:A,B,aM F preparation of a Responsiveness Sum-
<br /> ]U1 tlrIPWnS ler TFC
<br /> mary to respond to the comments
<br /> GIN Allonali..Ne.a
<br /> Nlal.Ta°,».»Ma • O O • ,,,•,..,, received on the PRAP. Approximately
<br /> x"KI:wl,•"""� two months later,LLNL will submit a
<br /> Sal AN.m.n..Ne., final cleanup plan known as a draft
<br /> " ""m'" °"'n0 • • • • •''Y Record of Decision(ROD),to DOE,EPA,
<br /> CMaIYn"°.IWN°n
<br /> Sen Anama°r.W.E RWQCB,and DTSC for approval. The
<br /> B aam.v.cen»mina. ROD is the document that formalizes
<br /> • 0IN,hwtb • wlu the regulatory PP roval of the cleanuP'r°untlNact„bylx.
<br /> bNtons dtniM1ni” Ian. Once the ROD is approved,the
<br /> ac
<br /> M Tr. man,Facility F P
<br /> • Aft.r.0WNIIyaall.11aol» e TF rloT»a"WIFNInM -5,tl.ADemmut"IfaccaPMM.w�I11M°MMmIMa final design and implementation of
<br /> M Million NNne'm•PN°nc Fommam P.rbe.na as wit a m. the plan will begin. The ROD will be
<br /> OAnama,lwiall.,Pu,l.lymnxbn R.c°rGofC.clalon"...a. $
<br /> 4& AN.rmllva PaRlallyacllalb.anarbn(76%) ••Ths, .1,his ran'.of entowl.°tt.Y added to the information repositories,
<br /> O LLNL.Pr.larrMaYmMlw ($12�u m)�aW onAment Is onnt"�Wry ac•°"10 along with all of the other site-
<br /> related documents.
<br /> Figure 6. Evaluation of treatment options forground water(GM and unsaturated soil. -
<br />
|