12.07.2015 Views

Perchlorate Occurrence in the Simi Valley Area - EnviroReporter.com

Perchlorate Occurrence in the Simi Valley Area - EnviroReporter.com

Perchlorate Occurrence in the Simi Valley Area - EnviroReporter.com

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

YUMPU automatically turns print PDFs into web optimized ePapers that Google loves.

<strong>Perchlorate</strong> PublicAdvisory Group (PPAG)• Established by LARWQCB, March 2003• In response to grow<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong>terest <strong>in</strong> water quality <strong>in</strong>Los Angeles and Ventura Counties• Comprised of <strong>in</strong>dividuals from government,regulated <strong>com</strong>munity, private sector,environmental organizations and areaneighborhoods


PPAG’s Mission• Provide an <strong>in</strong>formal forumfor <strong>the</strong> exchange of<strong>in</strong>formation aboutperchlorate, its impact tosurface and ground watersand contam<strong>in</strong>ant controland remediationtechnologies.• Provide meet<strong>in</strong>gparticipants with<strong>in</strong>formation which will behelpful when develop<strong>in</strong>g,coord<strong>in</strong>at<strong>in</strong>g andimplement<strong>in</strong>g strategies toprevent, identify, controlor remediate surface orground water pollution.


PPAG Ac<strong>com</strong>plishments• Authorities from various discipl<strong>in</strong>es have presented presentationson:– Development of a Regional Board perchlorate webpage– Nature and extent of perchlorate pollution <strong>in</strong> Los Angeles and VenturaCounties– USEPA overview of perchlorate impacts– Development of a Public Health Goal (PHG) and Maximum Contam<strong>in</strong>antLevel (MCL) for perchlorate– Exist<strong>in</strong>g and potential detection– <strong>Perchlorate</strong> treatment technologies• PPAG presentations can be viewed on <strong>the</strong> Regional Board’s website


PPAG Participation• PPAG meet<strong>in</strong>gs open to everyone <strong>in</strong>terested <strong>in</strong> learn<strong>in</strong>gabout perchlorate, its occurrence and current and futureefforts to elim<strong>in</strong>ate its presence <strong>in</strong> surface and groundwaters with <strong>the</strong> coastal watershed.• Meet<strong>in</strong>gs held quarterly, usually at Regional Board’soffices <strong>in</strong> downtown Los Angeles• PPAG meet<strong>in</strong>g dates, locations and agendas posted onRegional Board’s web site


<strong>Perchlorate</strong> and Its <strong>Occurrence</strong>A brief <strong>in</strong>troduction


<strong>Perchlorate</strong> and Its <strong>Occurrence</strong>• <strong>Perchlorate</strong> has been found <strong>in</strong> many locations across <strong>the</strong>United States• A major source of perchlorate is <strong>the</strong> Kerr-McGee facility<strong>in</strong> Henderson, Nevada– contam<strong>in</strong>ation has found its way to Lake Mead– contam<strong>in</strong>ation is <strong>in</strong> Colorado River water


U.S.<strong>Perchlorate</strong> Releases#S#S#S #S #S#S#S#S#S#S#S #S#S#S#S#S #S#S#S #S#S#S#S#S #S#S#S#S#S#S #S#S#S#S#S#S#S#S#S#S#S #S#S#S#S#S#S#S#S #S#S#S Confirm ed Sites#S Unconfirm ed SitesUrbanized <strong>Area</strong>sMajor RiversAffected StatesNScale: 1:20,000,000200 0 200 400 M ilesSources1. USEPA R egions 3,6,7,9,102. California Departm ent ofHealth Services3. Arizona Departm entofEnvironm entalQuality4. New M exico Environm entalDepartm ent5. Texas N aturalResource C onservation Com mision6. Utah D epartm ent of Environm entalQ uality7. W est Virg<strong>in</strong>ia Division of Environm entalProtection8. Suffolk C ounty,New York,Departm ent of Health Services9. Siddiquiet.al.1998Novem ber 20,2000


<strong>Perchlorate</strong> and Its <strong>Occurrence</strong>• Possible <strong>Perchlorate</strong> Sources– <strong>Occurrence</strong> closely associated with aerospace anddefense sites– Primary contam<strong>in</strong>ation most likely from “legacy”sources– Incidental and localized contam<strong>in</strong>ation may be from avariety of sources (e.g., fireworks, road flares,fertilizers)


Groundwater and <strong>Perchlorate</strong>:Los Angeles Region• Maximum reported concentrations <strong>in</strong> groundwaterassociated with aerospace and defense sites– Aerojet (Baldw<strong>in</strong> Park) 2,180 ppb– NASA/JPL (Pasadena) 1,500 ppb– Santa Susana Field Lab (<strong>Simi</strong> <strong>Valley</strong>) 1,600 ppb– US Naval Facility (San Nicholas Island) 16 ppb– Whittaker Bermite (Santa Clarita) 310,000 ppb


Groundwater and <strong>Perchlorate</strong>:Los Angeles Region• Central Bas<strong>in</strong>– sporadic detections <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> Cities of Vernon, Commerce,Norwalk and Bellflower• San Gabriel Bas<strong>in</strong>– bas<strong>in</strong>-wide detections, <strong>in</strong>side and outside designatedSuperfund areas• Pomona <strong>Valley</strong>– detection <strong>in</strong> 23 production wells <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> City of Pomona


Groundwater and <strong>Perchlorate</strong>:<strong>Simi</strong> <strong>Valley</strong>


Groundwater and <strong>Perchlorate</strong>:<strong>Simi</strong> <strong>Valley</strong>• <strong>Simi</strong> <strong>Valley</strong>– Dr<strong>in</strong>k<strong>in</strong>g water supplies• no perchlorate found <strong>in</strong> any <strong>Simi</strong> <strong>Valley</strong> dr<strong>in</strong>k<strong>in</strong>g water well orsource– Groundwater (not used for dr<strong>in</strong>k<strong>in</strong>g water)• 66 wells sampled


Groundwater and <strong>Perchlorate</strong>:<strong>Simi</strong> <strong>Valley</strong>• Of <strong>the</strong> 66 wells sampled– perchlorate detected <strong>in</strong> 17 groundwater samples• majority of detections at depths of less than 20 feet– all detections less than 20 ppb– 7 detections less than 6 ppb– California Public Health Goal: 2-6 ppb


Groundwater and <strong>Perchlorate</strong>:<strong>Simi</strong> <strong>Valley</strong>• <strong>Perchlorate</strong> is present <strong>in</strong> groundwater but s<strong>in</strong>gle or multiplesource(s) not confirmed– current data show no def<strong>in</strong>able plume of contam<strong>in</strong>ation– at present, <strong>the</strong>re is no confirmed connection to SSFL as <strong>the</strong> source– SSFL not ruled out as a source– supplemental re-sampl<strong>in</strong>g of 8 wells at four sites by RegionalBoard and DTSC (June/July 2003)


2605 Stearns2383 Sycamore /2405 Sycamore1196 Patricia Ave


Gas StationsRecent Groundwater ResultsPrevious and Recent ResultsGas Station Monitor<strong>in</strong>g Well JULY 2002 JULY 200376 Station (19)2605 Stearns<strong>Simi</strong> <strong>Valley</strong>, CAMW-1 ND NDMW-5 ND NDMW-6 4.44 NDShell Station (20)2405 Sycamore<strong>Simi</strong> <strong>Valley</strong> CAMW-1 15.2 16.3MW-2 5.9 9.83MW-3 12.4 4.8376 Station (21)2383 Sycamore<strong>Simi</strong> <strong>Valley</strong>, CAMW-11 ND Not sampledMW-13 ND Not sampledMW-16 ND Not sampledMW-17 13.29 14.4


Gas StationsRecent Groundwater ResultsPrevious and Recent ResultsGas Station Monitor<strong>in</strong>g Well MAY 2002 MAY 2003Warne Property1196 Patricia Avenue<strong>Simi</strong> <strong>Valley</strong>, CAMW-1 19.28 NDMW-3 ND NDMW-9 ND ND


Gas Stations2003 Groundwater Results• Two gas stations that detected perchlorate <strong>in</strong> 2002<strong>in</strong> one monitor<strong>in</strong>g well did not detect it <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> 2003sampl<strong>in</strong>g.• <strong>Perchlorate</strong> was aga<strong>in</strong> detected at two o<strong>the</strong>r gasstations, <strong>in</strong> four monitor<strong>in</strong>g wells, at levels similarto those detected <strong>in</strong> 2002.• The maximum perchlorate concentration was 16.3ppb <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong> 2003 groundwater sampl<strong>in</strong>g.


<strong>Perchlorate</strong> and <strong>the</strong>Santa Susana Field Lab (SSFL)


SSFL Groundwater Monitor<strong>in</strong>g Network (wells, spr<strong>in</strong>gs, seeps)Bathtub Well No. 1 (to bediscussed <strong>in</strong> more detail)Blue <strong>in</strong>dicates no detectionsBlue/red <strong>in</strong>dicates s<strong>in</strong>gle detectionamong multiple eventsRed <strong>in</strong>dicates multiple detectionsFormer SodiumDisposal Facility<strong>Area</strong>Happy <strong>Valley</strong>/Build<strong>in</strong>g 359 <strong>Area</strong>sCompound A FacilityThermal Treatment Facility


SSFL Groundwater Contam<strong>in</strong>ation• Santa Susana Field Laboratory (SSFL) (April 2003)– more than 1100 groundwater samples at or near SSFL– approximately 18% of samples detected perchlorate– almost all detections located on-site <strong>in</strong> known areas ofperchlorate use/destruction– s<strong>in</strong>gle off-site detection ~ 4 ppb• Meier Canyon• Woolsey Canyon– not detected <strong>in</strong> on- or off-site seeps or spr<strong>in</strong>gs• Bathtub Well No. 1 (more recent sampl<strong>in</strong>g)


Sites of <strong>Perchlorate</strong> Use WithContam<strong>in</strong>ation <strong>in</strong> Groundwater• Contam<strong>in</strong>ation Sites and Concentrations (April 2003)– Build<strong>in</strong>g 359 area• 1,600 ppb• Chatsworth Formation Well HAR-16 <strong>in</strong> discrete-<strong>in</strong>terval– Happy <strong>Valley</strong> area• 280 ppb• Chatsworth Formation Well RD-10 (231’-241’ below groundsurface)– Former Sodium Disposal Facility area• 15 ppb• Shallow monitor<strong>in</strong>g well, wea<strong>the</strong>red bedrock, RS-54• Chatsworth Formation well RD54A, up to 56 ppb <strong>in</strong> discrete<strong>in</strong>terval


Sites of <strong>Perchlorate</strong> Use with NoContam<strong>in</strong>ation <strong>in</strong> Groundwater• Compound A Facility (April 2003)– Metal form<strong>in</strong>g area us<strong>in</strong>g explosives– No record of actual perchlorate usage– 11 ppb <strong>in</strong> shallow zone well, ES-24 <strong>in</strong> wea<strong>the</strong>redbedrock– Non-repeatable detections not <strong>in</strong>cluded• Thermal Treatment Facility– Burn<strong>in</strong>g of liquid fuels, solvents and solid propellants <strong>in</strong> steel bas<strong>in</strong>with<strong>in</strong> steel cage covered with densely woven steel mesh– Approximately 1,890 pounds of perchlorate burned (1960-1990)– No detection <strong>in</strong> groundwater


Soils and <strong>Perchlorate</strong>: SSFL• Santa Susana Field Laboratory– more than 800 soil samples at or near SSFL– approximately 25% of samples detected perchlorate– almost all located on-site <strong>in</strong> known areas of perchlorateuse/destruction


Soils and <strong>Perchlorate</strong>: SSFL• Contam<strong>in</strong>ated <strong>Area</strong>s and Maximum Concentrations– Build<strong>in</strong>g 359 area• 71,290 ppb• near bulk material storage and handl<strong>in</strong>g facility– Happy <strong>Valley</strong> area• 320 ppb• near test build<strong>in</strong>g 372– Former Sodium Disposal Facility area• 1,300 ppb (prior to remedial action)• not detectable (after remedial action)– Compound A facility• possible perchlorate use associated with metal form<strong>in</strong>g process• 11 ppb detectable (near well ES-24)


Soils and <strong>Perchlorate</strong>: SSFL• Known <strong>Area</strong>s of <strong>Perchlorate</strong>Use/Destruction <strong>Area</strong>s To be Tested– Thermal Treatment <strong>Area</strong>• Eleven samples collected, data prelim<strong>in</strong>ary, not yetvalidated– 10 non-detects, 1 detect at 4.3 ppb• Additional sampl<strong>in</strong>g scheduled dur<strong>in</strong>g 2003


Soils and <strong>Perchlorate</strong>:Sampl<strong>in</strong>g on Lands Adjacent to SSFL• Numerous samples from canyons and dra<strong>in</strong>age channels located <strong>in</strong><strong>the</strong> undeveloped areas surround<strong>in</strong>g SSFL• One sample collected from Meier Canyon (north side of SSFL) hadreported detection of 4.6 ppb– Meier Canyon detection could not be duplicated follow<strong>in</strong>g re-analysis of 60pounds of soils from same location• Regional Board soil/sediment samples from Chatsworth Reservoirand Dayton Canyon Creek– 2 Chatsworth and 1 Dayton Canyon Creek Samples (March 2003)– No perchlorate detected• A total of 10 wells and one tap water source sampled at <strong>the</strong>Ray<strong>the</strong>on site (Fallbrook & Roscoe). Prelim<strong>in</strong>ary data all non-


SSFL Surface Water RunoffDischarge Permit


Surface Water Runoff:Current Permit Requirement for SSFL Permit applies to discharges of surface waterfrom SSFL Current provisions of 1996 permit Effluent limits for chemicals of concern <strong>in</strong> wastewaterand storm water discharges No current effluent limits for perchlorate (1996) Monitor<strong>in</strong>g for priority pollutants <strong>in</strong> wastewater Monitor storm water discharges for perchlorate.


Surface Water Runoff:Tentative Permit Requirements for SSFL• All discharges from a facility are required to be regulatedunder a permit issued by <strong>the</strong> Regional Board– storm water runoff/wastewater– current SSFL permit is to be renewed shortly,scheduled for Regional Board consideration tentativelyset for October 2, 2003– proposed permit will <strong>in</strong>clude requirements forperchlorate monitor<strong>in</strong>g and discharge limits• exact limits to be set by <strong>the</strong> Regional Board after apublic hear<strong>in</strong>g


Surface Water Runoff:Tentative Permit Requirements for SSFL Tentative Permit Likely provisions will <strong>in</strong>clude: California Toxics Rule (CTR)-based effluent limitsfor waste water discharges CTR-based daily maximum effluent limits for stormwater only New effluent limit for perchlorate based on <strong>the</strong> mostrecent DHS Action Level A requirement for monitor<strong>in</strong>g of “emerg<strong>in</strong>g”chemicals


Surface Water Runoff:Concentrations <strong>in</strong> Storm Water at SSFLOutfallDate 003 004 005 006 007 Happy <strong>Valley</strong>3/25/98


Surface Water Runoff:Concentrations <strong>in</strong> Storm Water at Happy <strong>Valley</strong>HappyHappyDate <strong>Valley</strong> Date <strong>Valley</strong>1/12/01 8 µg/L 2/12/03 4.7 µg/L2/13/01 5.5 2/14/03


Santa Susana Field Laboratory<strong>Perchlorate</strong> Update – Interim MeasureHappy <strong>Valley</strong>/Build<strong>in</strong>g 359 are on site sources that need to becleaned upInterim Measure Workplan Submitted June 16• Biodegradation and/or excavation with off-site disposal•RWQCB and DTSC <strong>com</strong>ment on Workplan (July)•Workplan amendments have been received (August 18)•Interim cleanup efforts underway•Cleanup scheduled dur<strong>in</strong>g September/October


Build<strong>in</strong>g Demolition <strong>in</strong> Support of Happy<strong>Valley</strong>/Build<strong>in</strong>g 359 Interim Measures•Approximately 10 build<strong>in</strong>gs/foundations removed•Build<strong>in</strong>g debris sent to Kettleman Hills landfill•Demolition activities facilitate clean up


SSFL <strong>Perchlorate</strong> Status• 90 Day Look Ahead…..– Cont<strong>in</strong>u<strong>in</strong>g data validation of off-site samples– Initiate perchlorate Clean up <strong>in</strong> Happy <strong>Valley</strong>/Build<strong>in</strong>g359 area– Implement perchlorate characterization workplan(August)– Cont<strong>in</strong>ue on and off site groundwater monitor<strong>in</strong>g andsampl<strong>in</strong>g– Conduct on-site landfill <strong>in</strong>vestigations


C-1 Pump<strong>in</strong>g Test• Pump Test for Aquifer Characterization– six week duration– 60 gpm discharge to Bell Cyn (001) watershed– Required DTSC Permit Modification– Facilitate Corrective Actions for Groundwater– Requires Additional Treatment Module


C-1 Pump<strong>in</strong>g Test EffluentAnalyses• Two sample events evaluat<strong>in</strong>g <strong>the</strong> <strong>in</strong>fluent and <strong>the</strong>effluent• Analysis for all priority pollutants except asbestos• Analysis for emergent chemicals:– ammonium perchlorate– n-nitrodimethylam<strong>in</strong>e– 1,4-dioxane– 1,2,3-trichloropropane


Ahmanson Ranch MW-1


Ahmanson Ranch Water Quality Sampl<strong>in</strong>g• Shallow Groundwater and Surface Water Sampl<strong>in</strong>g– November 2002• 6 shallow wells samples (P-1 through P-6)• 4 surface water samples (S-1 S-2 S-4 and S-6)• perchlorate not detected <strong>in</strong> any sample and no chlor<strong>in</strong>ated VOC’s detected– March 2003 and June 2003• 6 shallow well samples (P-1 through P-6)• 6 surface water samples (S-1 through S-6)• perchlorate not detected <strong>in</strong> any sample and no chlor<strong>in</strong>ated VOC’s detected


Ahmanson Ranch Well MW-1• Deep Groundwater Sampl<strong>in</strong>g (MW-1)– July 3, 2002 at 550 feet (Ahmanson Ranch Company)• perchlorate and VOC’s non-detect– August 1, 2002 at 450 and 550 feet (Ahmanson Ranch Company)• perchlorate and VOC’s non-detect– August 1, 2002 at 50, 450 and 550 feet (Ventura Co. Plann<strong>in</strong>gDepartment)• S<strong>in</strong>gle detection at 550 feet (28 ppb)– Ventura Co. Plann<strong>in</strong>g Department– Separate sample taken same day/depth showed non-detect forperchlorate


Ahmanson Well (MW-1) Re-Test<strong>in</strong>g• Regional Board staff approved workplan to retest AhmansonWell #1 (April 23, 2003)– Purpose was to validate <strong>the</strong> presence of perchlorate under similarconditions where perchlorate was previously detected– Bl<strong>in</strong>d spiked samples at two concentrations used– “Library” samples used– Three <strong>in</strong>dependent certified test<strong>in</strong>g laboratories used for each sampl<strong>in</strong>gevent


Ahmanson Ranch MW-1Photo Documentation of Sampl<strong>in</strong>g Procedureat Ahmanson RanchWell No. 1June 17, 2003


Ahmanson Well (MW-1) Re-Test<strong>in</strong>g• Results of re-test<strong>in</strong>g of Ahmanson Well #1– Initial test<strong>in</strong>g June 17, 2003, at 450’ and 550’ depths, all non-detect forperchlorate and VOC’s (TCE/PCE, etc.)– Second test<strong>in</strong>g July 16, 2003, non-detect for <strong>Perchlorate</strong> and VOC’s


Ahmanson BOEING PROPRIETARY Well M-1-Groundwater <strong>Perchlorate</strong> Results (ppb)(updated August 18, 2003)DateSampleDepthSampled ByWeckLabHML LabDel Mar LabJuly 3, 02 550’ Ahmanson NDAugust 1, 02 50’ Ventura Co. NDAugust 1, 02 450’ Ventura Co. NDAugust 1, 02 550’ Ventura Co. 28August 1, 02 50’ Ahmanson NDAugust 1, 02 450’ Ahmanson NDAugust 1, 02 550’ Ahmanson NDJune 17, 03 450’ Regional Board NDJune 17, 03 550’ Regional Board NDJune 17, 03 450’ DTSC NDJune 17, 03 550’ DTSC NDJune 17, 03 450’ Ventura Co. NDJune 17, 03 550’ Ventura Co. NDJune 17, 03 450’ Ahmanson NDJune 17, 03 550’ Ahmanson ND


Ahmanson BOEING PROPRIETARY Well M-1-Groundwater <strong>Perchlorate</strong> Results (ppb)(updated August 18, 2003)Date Sample Sampled By Weck Lab HML Lab Del Mar LabDepthJuly 16, 03 450’ Regional Board NDJuly 16, 03 550’ Regional Board NDJuly 16, 03 450’ Ventura Co. Pend<strong>in</strong>gJuly 16, 03 550’ Ventura Co. Pend<strong>in</strong>gJuly 16, 03 450’ Ahmanson NDJuly 16, 03 550’ Ahmanson ND


Ahmanson Surface BOEING Water PROPRIETARY and Piezometer-<strong>Perchlorate</strong> Results (ppb)(updated August 18, 2003)Date Sample Sampled By ResultsLocationJune 25, 03 S-1 Ahm anson NDJune 25, 03 S-2 Ahm anson NDJune 25, 03 S-4 Ahm anson NDJune 25, 03 S-5 Ahm anson NDJune 25, 03 S-6 Ahm anson NDJune 25, 03 P-1 Ahm anson NDJune 25, 03 P-2 Ahm anson NDJune 25, 03 P-3 Ahm anson NDJune 25, 03 P-4 Ahm anson NDJune 25, 03 P-5 Ahm anson NDJune 25, 03 P-6 Ahm anson ND


Laboratory Test<strong>in</strong>g for <strong>Perchlorate</strong> <strong>in</strong>Groundwater• Limitations of US EPA Test Method 314.0 used to Determ<strong>in</strong>e<strong>Perchlorate</strong> Contam<strong>in</strong>ation– Matrix <strong>in</strong>terference from <strong>com</strong>mon anions (e.g. chloride, sulfate, andcarbonate) <strong>in</strong> water samples.– Interference due to matrix differences and test<strong>in</strong>g equipment canoccur and result <strong>in</strong> higher detection limits, above 4 ppb, andpotentially false positive <strong>in</strong> test results .– Samples that conta<strong>in</strong> high levels of conductivity require pretreatmentand dilution.


Brandies-Bard<strong>in</strong> Institute(Bathtub Well No. 1)


“Bathtub Well No. 1” LocationNor<strong>the</strong>rn Dra<strong>in</strong>age <strong>Area</strong>Build<strong>in</strong>g 359/Happy <strong>Valley</strong>Interim Measure


Note: * Sample result orig<strong>in</strong>ally reported at 82 ppb** Indicates co-located samplesBOEING PROPRIETARYBathtub Well 1 (OS-9)Groundwater <strong>Perchlorate</strong> Results (ppb)(updated August 18, 2003)DateSampledbyWeckLabASL Lab(DTSC)HML Lab(DTSC)Del Mar(PrimaryLab)Ceimic/American(Backu p Lab )3/20/02DTSCND2/21/03Ventura CountyND*5/30/03DTSC140, 150 **6/11/03DTSC36, 39 **ND/ND7/2/03Boe<strong>in</strong>gNDND7/10/03Boe<strong>in</strong>gNDND7/17/03Boe<strong>in</strong>gNDND7/24/037/31/03DTSC/Boe<strong>in</strong>gDTSC/Boe<strong>in</strong>gND, ND **ND, ND **Pend <strong>in</strong> gPend <strong>in</strong> gNDNDNDND/ND8/7/03DTSC/Boe<strong>in</strong>gPend <strong>in</strong> gPend <strong>in</strong> gNDND8/12/03DTSC/Boe<strong>in</strong>gPend <strong>in</strong> gPend <strong>in</strong> gNDND


Brandeis Bard<strong>in</strong> Well Investigation•Groundwater Sampl<strong>in</strong>g Results:•Ventura County sample (2/21/03) result of 82ppb•has been revised to “non-detect” due to reported lab error• DTSC co-located samples (5/30/03) report perchlorate at 140 and 150 ppb• DTSC co-located samples (6/11/03) report perchlorate at 36 and 39 ppb•at one lab, however, o<strong>the</strong>r lab does not detect perchlorate•DTSC-HML Berkley Lab confirmed perchlorate <strong>in</strong> sample from 6/11/03• <strong>Perchlorate</strong> reported as non-detect <strong>in</strong> 7 subsequent sampl<strong>in</strong>g events <strong>com</strong>pleted byBoe<strong>in</strong>g dur<strong>in</strong>g July/August 2003


Techniques used dur<strong>in</strong>g re-sampl<strong>in</strong>g tolimit sample error• 32 GROUNDWATER SAMPLES & DUPLICATES -To determ<strong>in</strong>e perchlorate concentration.• 16 FIELD & LAB MATRIX SPIKES –To determ<strong>in</strong>e potential for perchlorate degradation.• 10 REAGENT SPIKES & DUPLICATES-To confirm laboratory accuracy• 21 FIELD & REAGENT BLANKS-To determ<strong>in</strong>e <strong>the</strong> presence of field or laboratory contam<strong>in</strong>ation• 14 ANALYSES FOR TWO MATRIX MDL STUDIES-To determ<strong>in</strong>e <strong>the</strong> potential for matrix <strong>in</strong>terference


Santa Susana Field Laboratory<strong>Perchlorate</strong> Update – Characterization•Work Plan Required by DTSC Identify <strong>Perchlorate</strong>•Characterization Workplan submitted on August 18 th•Characterization work <strong>in</strong>itiated by Boe<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong> “Nor<strong>the</strong>rn Dra<strong>in</strong>age”dur<strong>in</strong>g July•17 seeps and spr<strong>in</strong>gs sampled•Approximately 100 soil and sediment samples collected•Weekly groundwater monitor<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong>itiated at Bathtub Well No. 1(with DTSC also sampl<strong>in</strong>g)


Summary:Brandeis Bard<strong>in</strong> Investigation•Lab <strong>in</strong>correctly reported perchlorate February 2003•Both detection and non-detection reported on essentially <strong>the</strong> samegroundwater samples• No perchlorate detected dur<strong>in</strong>g July and August 2003 sampl<strong>in</strong>g•Data <strong>in</strong>dicates that perchlorate can not be consistently shown to bepresent or absent from <strong>the</strong> well•Absence of repeatability of perchlorate results leads to uncerta<strong>in</strong>ty•need for cont<strong>in</strong>u<strong>in</strong>g monitor<strong>in</strong>g and <strong>in</strong>vestigation


Landfill Sampl<strong>in</strong>g


• <strong>Simi</strong> <strong>Valley</strong> Landfill and Recycl<strong>in</strong>g Center– Sampl<strong>in</strong>g Completed– Non-detect for <strong>Perchlorate</strong>• Calabasas Landfill– Sampl<strong>in</strong>g Completed– Non-detect for <strong>Perchlorate</strong>• Bradley LandfillDetection of <strong>Perchlorate</strong>at Landfills– Sampl<strong>in</strong>g to be conducted at next quarterly sampl<strong>in</strong>g– Results due October 2003• Burbank Landfill– Sampl<strong>in</strong>g Completed– <strong>Perchlorate</strong> detected <strong>in</strong> 2 of 5 wells tested (2.5 and 15 ppb)


Radionuclides <strong>in</strong> Groundwater• Gross alpha– naturally occurr<strong>in</strong>g values <strong>in</strong> LA areagroundwater vary widely (2 - 2,000 pCi/L)• Ahmanson well MW-1 (15 pCi/L)• SSFL RD-07 (14.4 pCi/L) February 2003


Landfill Radioactivity Sampl<strong>in</strong>g ResultsSpecies MCL LandfillGrossAlphaGrossBeta1550Tritium 20,000UpDownLeachateGradientGradientBradley 6.5 4.18 10.03Calabasas 40.7 52.6 24.1Sunsh<strong>in</strong>e Canyon 1.98 1.7 3.45Bradley 5.9 500 5.9Calabasas 34.4 50.4 15.5Sunsh<strong>in</strong>e Canyon 6.3 83.4 21.8Bradley ND 6,250 NDCalabasas ND 1,060 160Sunsh<strong>in</strong>e Canyon ND 29,255 ND


Dr<strong>in</strong>k<strong>in</strong>g Water and <strong>Perchlorate</strong>


Dr<strong>in</strong>k<strong>in</strong>g Water Wells and <strong>Perchlorate</strong>:State of California• No Federal or State Maximum Contam<strong>in</strong>ant Level (MCL)• CA Dept. of Health Services– to adopt State MCL by January 2004• CA Dept. of Health Services Action Level– 4ppb• CA Dept of Health Services Detection (Report<strong>in</strong>g) Limit– 4ppb• No dr<strong>in</strong>k<strong>in</strong>g water supplied from affected wells


Summary ofRegional Board Actions


Regional Board Actions:Source Identification• December 2002 Regional Board issued <strong>in</strong>vestigation directive letter to Boe<strong>in</strong>g(Santa Susana Field Lab)• December 2002 Regional Board issued <strong>in</strong>vestigation directive letter to AhmansonRanch to retest Well MW-1 (Workplan approved April 23, 2003)– Initial test<strong>in</strong>g June 17, 2003 non-detect for perchlorate and VOC’s– Second test<strong>in</strong>g July 16, 2003 prelim<strong>in</strong>ary data non-detect for perchlorate andVOC’s• January 2003 Regional Board issued <strong>in</strong>vestigation directive letter to <strong>the</strong> City of<strong>Simi</strong> <strong>Valley</strong> (landfill/recycl<strong>in</strong>g center and dewater<strong>in</strong>g wells)– Landfill/ recycl<strong>in</strong>g center non-detect for perchlorate– Dewater<strong>in</strong>g wells 5 wells tested one perchlorate detect at 3.8 ppb


• March 2003Regional Board Actions:Source Identification– Board issued <strong>in</strong>vestigation directive letter to ten rema<strong>in</strong><strong>in</strong>g active landfills <strong>in</strong><strong>the</strong> Region– Calabasas Landfill-10 wells tested all non-detect for perchlorate– Sunsh<strong>in</strong>e Canyon (County)-2 wells tested all non-detect for perchlorate– Sunsh<strong>in</strong>e Canyon (City)-11 wells tested all non-detect for perchlorate• June 23, 2003– Regional Board issued <strong>in</strong>formation request letter to Brandies-Bard<strong>in</strong> Institute• June/August 2003-– Supplemental sampl<strong>in</strong>g at 4 gasol<strong>in</strong>e service stations, Pacific Ave. and StearnsAve. sites non-detect for perchlorate. <strong>Perchlorate</strong> detected at <strong>the</strong> twoSycamore Ave. sites.• O<strong>the</strong>r sites to be evaluated as appropriate


Regional Board Actions:Current Action• Current Focus is on Investigation– orders issued to determ<strong>in</strong>e extent of contam<strong>in</strong>ation– data still <strong>com</strong><strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong> and be<strong>in</strong>g reviewed and evaluated• Draft<strong>in</strong>g surface runoff permit for Regional Boardconsideration– scheduled for Board action at a public hear<strong>in</strong>g: October 2,2003


Regional Board Action:Future Actions• Future Actions (planned)– renew and update Boe<strong>in</strong>g surface water runoff permit (October2003)– cont<strong>in</strong>ue source identification efforts– cont<strong>in</strong>ue coord<strong>in</strong>ation with US/EPA and DTSC• Future Actions (potential)– issue Cleanup and Abatement Orders if warranted• of significant contam<strong>in</strong>ation sources• if off-site groundwater contam<strong>in</strong>ation and cleanup is deemed necessary– enforce permit effluent limits if violations occur


<strong>Perchlorate</strong> <strong>Occurrence</strong> <strong>in</strong> <strong>the</strong><strong>Simi</strong> <strong>Valley</strong> <strong>Area</strong>Public Comment/Questions

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!