Santa Susana Field Laboratory RCRA Facility Investigation Report - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Santa Susana Field Laboratory RCRA Facility Investigation Report Review Group 2 – NASA Area I and Northern Portion of NASA Area II

May 18, 2009 Thomas M. Skaug, C.E.G. Engineering Geologist California Environmental Protection Agency Department of Toxic Substances Control

Today’s Discussion...

• RFI objectives and scope of RFI review
• Group 2 RFI (RFI-2) Report organization

and contents

• Site conditions and site history
• Preliminary RFI findings
• Preliminary Recommendations

1

RFI Objectives

• Identify sources of chemical contamination, what

chemicals are involved, and the extent of their

• ccurrence
• Evaluate where chemical contaminants are,

where they go, and how they get there

• Obtain sufficient info to complete a risk

assessment

• Gather data needed to make decisions on

interim or final cleanup measures

2

How was this RCRA Facility Investigation Performed?

• Historical Review
• Data Collection & Evaluation
• Recommendations

3

Historical Review

• Tens of thousands of documents related to

SSFL Compiled (reports, photos, hand-written notes, employee interviews, etc.)

• 4347 documents identified related to Group 2

Reviewed for evidence of chemicals used and possible release locations

• Site reconnaissance

4

Data Collection and Evaluation

• Nature and extent

– Potential areas of concern chosen (historical review, visual reconnaissance, etc.) – Sampling to evaluate presence – “Step-out” sampling to evaluate extent – Sampling completed when we answer: What is it? How much is there? And What is the boundary?

5

Data Collection and Evaluation (cont.)

• Data compared to published risk-based

concentrations and SSFL background if risk assessment is needed

6

Data Collection and Evaluation (cont.)

• Ecological & Human Health Risk

– Methods in current SRAM followed – Receptors – resident, worker, recreational Risk assessment must be updated to comply with SB990

7

What are RFI Site Action Recommendations?

• Based on the report findings of the RFI Report, the

Responsible Parties (RPs) can: – Conclude there is not enough data to make a decision (data gaps) – Identify and recommend areas for further evaluation in the Corrective Measures Study (CMS). – Identify and recommend areas for “no further action” (NFA).

8

RFI Site Action Recommendations

For Group 2:

• No sites are recommended for NFA.
• All RFI Sites have identified data gaps

– Work Plan – Public Review

• All RFI Sites areas are recommended for further

evaluation in the CMS

9

RFI Site Action Recommendations

• This is a starting point: more chemicals might

be identified for inclusion into CMS when updated input parameters are applied:

– SB990-compliant parameters; – Updated background; – Additional characterization studies (data gaps)

The Final RFI Report must address ALL

• utstanding issues.

10

Why Review RFI Reports Now?

Is there value in reviewing the RFI reports now, since we are still waiting for SB990-compliant RBSLs, updated Background data set, etc?

• Yes. Significant investigation activities have occurred over the

years, and reporting of the data warrants review to ensure we are capturing the “big picture” issues now, rather than later.

• Conducting review now will result in timely, adequate

completion of the RFI, which will generate a complete data set for use in the risk assessment.

• Follow up sampling will be conducted based on RFI review.

The next RFI-2 report issued will utilize the updated data set (including SB990-compliant parameters and updated background) to complete the risk assessment and provide a basis for recommendations for inclusion of sites into the Corrective Measures Study.

11

RFI-2 Report

Available on DTSC-SSFL web site for public review: http://www.dtsc-ssfl.com/

• The RFI-2 report is the 6th RFI Group Report

submitted

• RFI Report consists of 3 volumes (~300 pages

text + ~1,200 tables + ~150 figures/drawings + thousands of pages of lab data)

12

RFI report submittals

• RFI Program Report is an important

companion document to all RFI reports

• The Quality Assurance Project Plan and

SRAM are important supporting documents to all RFI reports

• Eleven RFI “group area” reports will cover

the entire site (Groups 1A, 1B, and 2 through 10)

13

“Operable Unit” Review

• “Surficial Media” (SMOU) includes all

environmental media above unweathered bedrock

• “Chatsworth Formation” (CFOU) includes all

unweathered bedrock and associated groundwater

• The RFI Report addresses both Surficial Media

and Chatsworth Formation

14

Surficial Media OU & Chatsworth Formation OU 15

SSFL Regional Map

16

NASA Land Ownership

NASA Area II (Former AFP 57) 409.5 Acres NASA LOX Plant (Former AFP 64) 41.7 Acres

17

Surficial Media RFI Groups

18

Group Area 2 – RFI Sites

RFI Site Summaries

20

Group 2 – Former LOX Plant

Former LOX Plant 21

Former LOX Plant - History

• Owned by the U.S. Air Force and
• perated by Air Products, Inc. from

1955 until the late 1971

• Liquid oxygen (LOX) was produced at

the site from liquefied air using a cryogenic process

• Buildings and LOX tanks were

removed in the early 1970s, and the concrete foundations were removed in 1996

• Sump and clarifier were excavated

and removed as part of the accelerated cleanup program in 1993

• Asbestos and Drum Disposal Area

was removed in early 1990s

• Debris containing asbestos was

removed from drainage ditch in 2007

Former LOX Plant – Nature & Extent

• Samples collected between 1993 and 2008

– Soil matrix: 251 samples – Soil vapor: 262 samples

• Sampling shows presence of metals, polycyclic aromatic

hydrocarbons (PAHs); Dioxins, Volatile Organic Compound (VOC) soil gases

• Data gaps: Silver, Benzo(b)fluoranthene, Indeno(1,2,3-

cd)pyrene, Trichloroethene (TCE) in soil vapor

24

Former LOX Plant – Risk Evaluation

• The primary chemicals for the LOX Plant are:

– Barium, – Benzidine, and – Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons – VOCs in soil vapor.

25

Group 2 – Area 2 Landfill

Area 2 Landfill

Area 2 Landfill – History

• Unlined landfill operated

1955 – 1980

• Unused fill material and

construction debris (asphalt, concrete, drums, scrap metal, timber, vegetation) were disposed

• f in the upper flat portion

and the steep north-facing slope.

• Near total re-vegetation of

the disturbed areas was

• bserved in the 1988 and

1995 aerial photographs.

29

Area II Landfill – Nature & Extent

• Samples collected between 1993 and

2008

– Soil Matrix: 145 samples – Soil Vapor: 83 samples

• Sampling shows presence of Metals,

PAHs, SVOCs, Dioxins, and PCBs.

• Data gaps: Copper, PCB-congeners,

PAHs, Benzene in soil gas

30

Area II Landfill – Risk Evaluation

• The primary concerns are

– PCBs – PAHs – Dioxins – SVOCs [di-n-butylphthalate and bis(2- ethylhexyl)phthalate] – Benzene in soil vapor

31

Group 2 – Expendable Launch Vehicle (ELV)

Expendable Launch Vehicle

ELV - History

• Bldg. 202 was Laser and Electro-Optical

System (LEOS) storage, a cafeteria, photo lab, and for manufacturing of harnesses for space shuttles.

• Bldg. 203 involved the use of a Lead

Tinning Machine, Vapor Degreaser, Aqueous Cleaner, Sand Blaster, and machine tools.

• Bldg 206 was originally tested rocket

engine components using LOX and petroleum-based fuels (RP-1 and JP-4), chemical storage, engine assembly and check, paint booth operations, machine shop, welding shop, steam cleaning

• perations, equipment

storage, hazardous materials storage, and

• ffice space. Wastes

were burned off in pond.

ELV – Nature & Extent

• Samples collected between 1993 and

2008

– Soil Matrix: 353 samples – Soil Vapor: 41 samples

• Sampling shows presence of Metals,

PAHs, Dioxins, and three VOCs.

• Data gaps: Metals, Dioxins, SVOCs,

VOCs; cis-1,2-DCE (soil vapor)

37

ELV – Risk Evaluation

• The primary chemicals are

– Mercury – Dioxins – TCE in soil vapor.

38

Group 2 – Former Incinerator, Ash Pile & Sewage Treatment Plant

Former Incinerator & Sewage Treatment Plant

Former Incinerator & Ashpile - History

• The Incinerator was a brick

structure approximately 10 feet by 8 feet with a 30-foot-high metal smokestack, surrounded by a 4-foot concrete apron.

• Operational from the mid-1950s

through the 1970s. Waste from the Incinerator was deposited in an ash pile located in an unpaved area to the south of the Incinerator.

• Paper, photographs, and trash

were burned at Building 2758.

• Soil investigation identified lead

and silver exceeded the threshold limit concentration.

• Ash pile was removed and

excavated in 1993

Former Ash Pile

Group 2 – Former Incinerator, Ash Pile & Sewage Treatment Plant

Sewage Treatment Plant - History

• Below grade, concrete-lined plant
• Operated from 1961 – 1987
• Received cooling tower water, possibly

containing trace solvents / fuels, and sanitary sewage

• An inactive leach field lies to the east of the

STP, and received waste from the ELV buildings (B211/202/203/206).

• The plant used a comminutor, source

aeration unit, and clarifier where clarified effluent was removed from the top after solids settled to the bottom.

• Settled sludge was removed for disposal and

treated water was pumped out and ultimately arrived in the Silvernale Reservoir.

Incinerator/STP – Nature & Extent

• Samples collected between 1993 and

2008 –Soil Matrix: 222 samples –Soil Vapor: 61 samples

• Sampling shows presence of Metals,

PCBs, PAHs, Dioxins; VOCs in soil vapor.

• Data gaps: Metals, PCB-126, PAHs,

Dioxins, SVOCs, VOCs in soil vapor

45

Incinerator/STP – Risk Evaluation

• The primary chemicals are

– Barium – Dioxins – Tetrachloroethene (PCE) in soil vapor

46

Public Comment Period April 20 through June 4

Thomas M. Skaug, C.E.G. Department of Toxic Substances Control 8800 Cal Center Drive Sacramento, California 95826 tskaug@dtsc.ca.gov

48

Questions??

49