Area I Burn Pit
Santa Susana Field Laboratory
RCRA Facility Investigation Work Plan
February 19, 2008
Laura Rainey, P.G.
Senior Engineering Geologist
California Environmental Protection Agency
Department of Toxic Substances Control

 Today’s Discussion
• Discuss status and scope of DTSC’s
review
• Review questions previously raised
regarding Area I Burn Pit investigation
• Describe additional work proposed to
complete the Burn Pit’s RFI
2

 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
• Gather data needed to make decisions on
interim or final cleanup measures
• Obtain sufficient info to complete a risk
assessment
3

 Scope of Review: RFI Work Plan
• Site History and Chemical Use
• Site Conditions
• Nature and Extent of Chemical Impacts –
review data for all media (soil, sediment, soil
vapor, surface water, groundwater)
• Screening for radioactive waste
4

 Previous Questions
• What is the Area I Burn Pit?
• Do we have adequate historical documentation
that describes past Burn Pit activities?
• What was burned or disposed of there?
• What chemicals are left behind?
• Was radioactive waste burned or disposed of
there?
• Are we looking at all relevant pathways for
potential contaminant migration?
5

 What was the Area I Burn Pit?
• Established 1958 through 1971. Discontinued in
1971 due to “air pollution considerations”.
Operated intermittently from 1971 through 1990.
• Used for burning, dilution, destruction of various
materials.
• Six acres, six pits ranging in volume from 200 to
10,000 gallons.
• Burn Pit also had burial/disturbed areas, drum &
equipment storage areas, above ground storage
tanks and other structures.
6

 Site Location Map

   
     
  

      

  
   

  
    
  
 

   
       
  
 
  
 

     
       

   

  

   

   

   
      

   

   
       

  
 

 

   

            
   

      
    
  
      
  

            
  

   
   
 
   

    
   
   

     
   

  
  
  

a?i?ag?g??rE-My Ga him :59 ??g?fwg?i 34:1? .w .wrm cg?
9v rpm-j: Maia. -- an ?a (Cg-?91-21572??

Ex 



 

 

Burn Pits 1961

1w:  
I N- 
EAIA?/a?llf Jill!


 

   
     

. Ta 


1  

    
 
  

  

 
 

,r.r







 

 

Mail/F7 17/590544; 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

.472? 55:15rapaawA?/wa MAP I ..
?4553 (Man: 0
PLM manhunt?: 5:77;- 2? i'



 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

-1 
mu If?, 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

0u7- .raJ

Burn



.
. 
{our Janav



D: 2:11am . 
1'5 any 2 car .1 
cw 4.05.4.5?! 752'

A 5' ?x 


larva-cm:
I Write :27?1;

 

   

 

 

  

12 [Aim 
may: 35'? 

NIM MM mt)?
WMML

  

army! 1757' um Mn!
AV 6.34;;
#354 9434;?

 

 

NOTE

LIESHM MM Hz: MAL: 3! a; 12!:
A??t?ux (rap Pym.) AMP ,mrrm
SHEEP A MW 5 Af? :wr 52?
774' mam AMHMAN FJILP 
warm ?2 am: a; an? an: Jiff. 54E: SHALL-
RIM 250? FEAFWWEI R: Ararp FIEECF
Gamma!" was! f?fj WE
mama: WSENJE a! WWENANJE .

 

 

1

par 5mm grass
Wm? (awry) 

a

Pit?andifica?rinns 1963



   
  
  
   
    
 
   
 
 
 
 
   
 
  
 
  

Mrber .cur i7ff5 

 
 

      
   
   

Ivy :2 r4212- wrim?iu Q1
may AW WM [bar i! ,a 
'51: DJ 27,?raga. dag/:3217ng 4;??116va mm- r} 
:mmras?xz can": .45 .m-yy 
Emmi; agar ti
1 ?r 5 I 0'5? diff(JINPIE .1237 54351:? 

gfruu I



511-71? 9
5.154%: A1 



.4110  ma,

5cm! a-

 

 Soil Sampling Locations



 

      
  

 
 
 
  
  
   
     
 

    
  

    

P'on? ?Fll'rn . 

196:: a  
r?  
. If! 


.. Ill-E  f, 

    

 

  
  



a had 2


  



  

Fund 'hwdu?uwhmuu?
mum?unduly 
Ilk .I hm-lrl .I
run? "Hip-n:

II 
Err-l I 
1?
I 


 

 

 

 

 

 

II rm hint-u'hl ?ll-tum   
Manual-Inn ALDRIELI m-Jumm gamma.
-. sun-mm ?mutant-VIIall: Inna-luau  SD SNIIFLING 
in BURN FIT - 4.5
a I :?mmgl?:  
Minn: a 1; ?a
w. law-r Null" Jilly? "u  2




"55ulnar?mm!!- min?hum mu? mural?Hat- h-m-H
I. umm MEI-imi- until-un- nun-Ina. autumn-r.-
I- nun-mun Pu wm 
?Alb-1?!

a manual-in?ll) .. ?ml-m cull-t:


 

 

 

i


"Mme 1 1

?Amnm

SNIPLING 
AREEI. EIUFEH SHMU 4.3

mum?5m 
Mun-Hm - mumcmh
Pal-u run.- lung-nu rid-?w? 
?hub?It 

In" a In]th 
Ful?l-If numb-?
IIh-ullbc-I- - 
Mill-mull
?mm?ah. El

Hall



mm ?In-m FIGURE 10

Historical Documentation
• Boeing was required to provide certified
compilation of relevant historical documents.
• These documents are included in Appendix C of
the Work Plan
• These documents include:
•
•
•
•

Inventory logs, records, and available invoices;
Operations files
Site/facility investigation files
Regulatory compliance correspondence, audits, permits, monitoring
reports, sampling reports, etc.
• Deposition testimonies from former workers
12

  






I:

 




I

 

 

What was Burned or Disposed of at
the Burn Pit?
• Wastes included:
–
–
–
–
–
–
–
–

450,000 gallons of fuels
6,924 igniters
21,300 gallons of process chemicals
13,810 pounds of reactive metals
31,717 gallons of organic solvents
5,121 pounds of explosives
32,932 cubic feet of toxic gases
191 gallons of heavy metal toxics
17

 Sources of Waste Materials
• On-site sources (site-wide, including Area
IV)
• Off-Site sources (i.e., Canoga, Vanowen,
Desoto & Science Center)

18

 What Chemicals Were Left Behind?
• Chemicals identified during previous investigations:
• 1981-1982 Geophysical surveying, remedial
excavations, soil sampling & analysis
• 1990 soil sampling and analysis
• 1993 removal of structures, geophysical surveying,
metallic-anomaly excavations, soil sampling & analysis
• 1994 soil sampling & analysis
• 2003 soil leachate & suface water sampling & analysis
• 2005 soil sampling & analysis
• 2006 soil sampling

19

 What Chemicals Were Left Behind?
• Need to consider initial materials that were burned,
destroyed, or diluted in order to evaluate potential byproducts
• Example – waste burned will potentially result in residual
thermal decomposition (i.e., burned) products
• Table 2-1 (in QAPP, Appendix A) lists potential analytical
parameters & their potential thermal decomposition
products and associated analytical methods
• Table 2-2 lists potential analytical parameters &
analytical methods that will be used to determine the
presence of original waste materials

20

 Examples – What Chemicals Were
Left Behind?
From Table 2-1:
• For acids, screen for total anions (chloride,
fluoride, sulfate, nitrate, nitrite,
phosphate), pH using USEPA Method
300.0, EPA Method 150.2
• For perchlorate-containing propellants,
screen for perchlorate using USEPA
Method 314.0
21

 Was Radioactive Waste Burned or
Disposed of at Burn Pit?
• Based on review to date, no definitive
information suggests it has, but questions
remain…
• Examples: cesium from Canoga & Desoto (7
pounds in early 1960’s)
• Na, K, NaK, and Li from Area IV sites
• Materials from radiological buildings in Area IV
(i.e., 4003, 4009, 4023, 4020)
• Materials from non-radiological buildings in Area
IV (i.e., 4057, 4065)
22

 Are We Looking At Relevant Pathways for
Contaminant Migration?
Yes. Work Plan addresses the following
potential pathways:
• Air dispersion migration from past burning
activities
• Groundwater migration
• Surface water and sediment migration
• Soil Vapor migration
23

 How do we deal with the
uncertainties?
• Utilize geophysical surveys
• Utilize radiological materials screening
survey
• Conduct air dispersion modeling with field
validation sampling
• Conduct additional sampling and analyses

24

 Proposed Work for Addressing
Deficiencies
• Utilizes relevant historical information to better
describe & delineate former chemical use areas
• Conduct air dispersion modeling w/field
validation sampling to evaluate potential
pathway of airborne particulates from past
burning activities
• Will conduct additional multi-media sampling to
complete characterization and determine siterelated chemicals of concern
• Conduct radiological materials screening survey
to address uncertainties
25