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

Transcription

1 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

2 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

3 RFI Objectives Identify sources of chemical contamination, what chemicals are involved, and the extent of their occurrence 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

4 How was this RCRA Facility Investigation Performed? Historical Review Data Collection & Evaluation Recommendations 3

5 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

6 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

7 Data Collection and Evaluation (cont.) Data compared to published risk-based concentrations and SSFL background if risk assessment is needed 6

8 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

9 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

10 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

11 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 outstanding issues. 10

12 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

13 RFI-2 Report Available on DTSC-SSFL web site for public review: The RFI-2 report is the 6 th 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

14 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

15 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

16 Surficial Media OU & Chatsworth Formation OU 15

17 SSFL Regional Map 16

18 NASA Land Ownership NASA Area II (Former AFP 57) Acres NASA LOX Plant (Former AFP 64) 41.7 Acres 17

19 Surficial Media RFI Groups 18

20 Group Area 2 RFI Sites

21 RFI Site Summaries 20

22 Group 2 Former LOX Plant Former LOX Plant 21

23 Former LOX Plant - History Owned by the U.S. Air Force and operated 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

24

25 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

26 Former LOX Plant Risk Evaluation The primary chemicals for the LOX Plant are: Barium, Benzidine, and Polycyclic Aromatic Hydrocarbons VOCs in soil vapor. 25

27

28 Group 2 Area 2 Landfill Area 2 Landfill

29 Area 2 Landfill History Unlined landfill operated Unused fill material and construction debris (asphalt, concrete, drums, scrap metal, timber, vegetation) were disposed of in the upper flat portion and the steep north-facing slope. Near total re-vegetation of the disturbed areas was observed in the 1988 and 1995 aerial photographs.

30 29

31 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

32 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

33

34 Group 2 Expendable Launch Vehicle (ELV) Expendable Launch Vehicle

35 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 operations, equipment storage, hazardous materials storage, and office space. Wastes were burned off in pond.

36

37

38 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

39 ELV Risk Evaluation The primary chemicals are Mercury Dioxins TCE in soil vapor. 38

40

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

42 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 Soil investigation identified lead and silver exceeded the threshold limit concentration. Ash pile was removed and excavated in 1993 Former Ash Pile

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

44 Sewage Treatment Plant - History Below grade, concrete-lined plant Operated from 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.

45

46 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

47 Incinerator/STP Risk Evaluation The primary chemicals are Barium Dioxins Tetrachloroethene (PCE) in soil vapor 46

48

49 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 tskaug@dtsc.ca.gov 48

50 Questions?? 49