United States
Environmental Protection
Agency
Office of
Emergency and
Remedial Response
EPA/ROD/R09-89/029
December 1988
Superfund
Record of Decision
IBM (San Jose), CA

-------
50272-101
 REPORT DOCUMENTATION
        PAGE
                        1. REPORT NO.
                             EPA/ROD/R09-89/029
                                                                   3. Recipient* Acceeeion Ho.
 4. TltteendSuMMe
   SUPERFUND RECORD OF DECISION
   IBM  (San  Jose Plant),. CA
   First Remedial Action - Final
                                                                   3. Report Date
                                                                           12/15/88
   w«hor<«)
                                                                   8. Performing OrganizMlon Rept No.
 V. Performing Ora«Wi»tlori Name and AAlreee
                                                                    10. Pro|ecttTiak/Work UnN No.
                                                                    11. Corilnct(C) or GramtC) No.

                                                                    (C)
 12. Sponoartng Organization Name and Addreeo
   U.S.  Environmental  Protection Agency
   401 M Street, S.W.
   Washington, D^C.  20460
                                                                   13. Type of Report A Period Covered

                                                                       800/000
                                                                    14.
 15.
 IS. Abe»act (Limit 200 word*)
   International  Business Machines ..(IBM) has  owned and operated a facility that
 manufactures data processing  machines in Santa Teresa Basin in San Jose,  .California.  IBM
 has  operated the facility since December 1956 using organic chemicals  including TCA.
 acetone, xylene,  and petroleum naphthas.  The organics have been handled and stored
 onsite in drums,  and above-ground and underground tanks.   In addition,  waste organic
 solvents were stored in concrete or steel underground tanks or drums;   however, the
 concrete tanks  were designed  only to store  organic wastes.   In October 1980, while
 excavating tanks in Tank Farm No.  1, IBM discovered soil  contaminated  with organics.
 Futhermore, investigations  in November 1981 revealed extensive ground  water
 contamination.   The ground  water plume extends more than  three miles northwest and  is
 more than 180 feet in depth.     Fourteen active or potentially active  water supply  wells
 are  downgradient to the plume;  however none of these public wells have been found to
 contain VOCs above State and  Federal drinking water standards<  Nineteen so.urces of soil
 and  ground water contamination have been identified including tank overflows, spillage
 from drum handling, and tank  and pipeline fitting failures.  Activities to prevent
 further solvent migration from the IBM source areas have  been conducted including
 removing underground storage  tanks which were replaced with above-ground tanks, and
  (See Attached Sheet)
                                                  CA
17. Document Analyaia a, Deecrlptora
   Record of Decision - IBM  (San Jose Plant),
   First Remedial Action - Final
   Contaminated Media: soil,  gw
   Key Contaminants: VOCs  (xylenes, TCA),  Organics

  b. Montfflora/Open-Endad Terme
   e. COSATI Reid/Group
   AvallapURy Statement
                                                    19. S*curttyCliM(Tnl«R»port)
                                                           None
                                                     20. Security CUM (TW« P»g»)
                                                            None	
21. No. ol Page*
        145
                                                                                22. Prica
(See ANS4-Z39.18)
                                      Sa» Instruction* an /bum**
                                                                              OPTIONAL FORM 272 (4-77)
                                                                              (ForrmHy NTIS-35)
                                                                              Department o( Commerce

-------
                   DO NOT PRINT THESE INSTRUCTIONS AS A PAGE IN A REPORT


                                                     INSTRUCTIONS
Optional Form 272, Report Documentation Pag* Is based on Guidelines for Format and Production of Scientific and Technical Reports,
ANSI Z39.18-1974 available from American National Standards Institute, 1430 Broadway, New York. New York 10018. Each separately
bound report—for example, each volume In a multlvolume aet—shall have Its unique Report Documentation Page.

  1.  Report Number. Each Individually bound report shall carry a unique alphanumeric designation assigned by the performing orga-
     nization or provided by the sponsoring organization In accordance with American National Standard ANSI 239.23-1974, Technical
     Report Number (STRN). For registration of report code, contact NTIS Report Number Clearinghouse, Springfield, VA 22161. Use
     uppercase letters. Arable numerals, slashes, and hyphens only, as In the following examples:  FASEB/NS-75/87 and FAA/
     RD-75/09.
  2.  Leave blank.                            •

  3.  Recipient's Accession Number. Reserved for use by each report recipient

  4.  Title and Subtitle. Title should Indicate clearly and briefly the subject coverage of the report, subordinate subtitle to the main
     title. When a report is prepared In more than one volume,  repeat the primary title, add volume number and Include subtitle for
     the specific volume.
  5.  Report Date. Each report shall carry a date Indicating at least month and year. Indicate the basis on which It was selected (e.g^.
     date of Issue, date of approval, date of preparation, date published).

  6.  Sponsoring Agency Code. Leave blank.

  7.  Authors). Give name(8) In conventional order (e.g., John R. Doe, or J. Robert Doe), List author's affiliation If It differs from
     the performing organization.

  8.  Performing organization Report Number. Insert If performing organteaton wishes to assign this number.

  9.  Performing Organization Name and'Mailing Address. Give name, street, city, state, and ZIP code, List no more than two levels of
     an organizational hlerachy. Display the name of the organization exactly as It should appear In Government Indexes such as
     Government Reports Announcements & Index (GRA 41).

 10.  Project/Task/Work Unit Number. Us* the project, task and work unit numbers under which the report was prepared.

 11.  Contract/Grant Number. Insert contract or grant number under which report was prepared.
 12.  Sponsoring Agency Name and Mailing Address.  Include ZIP code. Cite main sponsors.

 13.  Type of Report and Period Covered. State Interim, final, etc., and, If applicable, inclusive dates.

 14.  Performing Organization Code.  Leave blank.

 15.  Supplementary Notes. Enter Information not Included elsewhere but useful, such as: Prepared In cooperation with... Translation
     of... Presented at conference of... To be published In... When a report Is revised, Include a statement whether the new
     report supersedes or supplements the older report                         '          .         '.

 16.  Abstract Include a brief (200 words or less) factual summary of the most significant Information contained In the report If the
     report contains a significant bibliography or literature survey, mention It here.

 17.  Document Analysis, (a). Descriptors. Select from the Thesaurus of Engineering and Scientific Terms the proper authorized terma
     that Identify the major concept of the research and are sufficiently specific and precise to be used as Index entries for cataloging.

     (b). Identifiers and Open-Ended Terms. Use Identifiers for project names, code names, equipment designators, etc. Use open-
     ended terms written In descriptor form for those subjects for which no descriptor exists.

     (c). COSATI Field/Group. Field and Group assignments are to be taken form the 1964 COSATI Subject Category Ust Since the
     majority of documents are multldlsclpllnary In nature, the primary Field/Group assignments) will be the specific discipline,
     area of human endeavor, or type of physical object The appllcatlon(s) will be cross-referenced with secondary Reid/Group
     assignments that will follow the primary postlng(s).

 18.  Distribution Statement  Denote public releasabillty, for example "Release unlimited", or limitation for reasons other than
     security. Cite any availability to the public, with address, order number and price, If known.

 19. & 20.  Security Classification. Enter U.S. Security Classification In accordance with U. S. Security Regulations (I.e., UNCLASSIFIED).

 21.  Number of pages. Insert the total number of pages, Including Introductory pages, but excluding distribution list, If any.

22.  Price.  Enter price In paper copy (PC) and/or microfiche (MF) If known.

   GPO   1983 0 -  381 -526 (8393)                                                                      OPTIONAL FORM 272 BACK
                                                                                                  (4-77)

-------
EPA/ROD/R09-89/029
IBM (San Jose Plant), CA
First Remedial Action - Final                                       .

16.  Abstract (Continued)

excavating more than 23/000 yd3 of contaminated soil.  Interim remedial measures begun
in November 1982 to clean up the plume have included off- and onsite ground water
extraction with discharge of untreated ground water to storm drains.  The primary
contaminates of concern affecting the soil and ground water are VOCs including TCA,
toluene, and xylenes; and other organics.                                         •

 The selected remedial action for this site includes onsite soil vapor extraction;
onsite shallow and deep ground water, and offsite deep ground water pumping and
treatment using air stripping, followed by onsite discharge of treated ground water to
the aquifer and offsite discharge to surface water after the reuse capacity of the
aquifer is exhausted.  Remedial action costs for this remedy were not provided.

-------
      RECORD OF DECISION

International Business Machines
          San Jose, CA
                                   December 1988

-------
                        TABLE OF CONTENTS
Part 1 - Declaration

Part 2 - California Regional Water Quality Control Board
         Staff Report

Part 3 - California Regional Water Quality Control Board Site
         Cleanup Requirements Order

Part 4 - Responsiveness Summary

Part 5 - Administrative Record Index

-------
   PART 1




DECLARATION

-------
                        RECORD OF DECISION
                           DECLARATION

SITE NAME AND LOCATION;
International Business Machines
San Jose, CA


STATEMENT OF BASIS AND PURPOSE

     This document serves as EPA concurrence with the remedial
action for the International Business Machines (IBM) site, as ap-
proved by the California Regional Water Quality control Board,
San Francisco Bay Region (RWQCB).  The RWQCB approved this
remedial action in cbnformance with:  Sections 13000 and 13304
of the California Water Code, State of California Health and
Safety Code Section 25356.1, CERCLA, as amended by SARA, and the
National Contingency Plan.

     This EPA concurrence with the State's selection of remedy is
based upon the RWQCB's Staff Report, the Remedial Action Plan,
the Site Cleanup Requirements Order, the Responsiveness Summary,
and the Administrative Record for this site.  The attached index
lists the items comprising the Administrative Record.

DESCRIPTION OF REMEDIAL ACTION

     The selected remedy provides for final cleanup requirements
related to onsite soils and groundwater, and offsite groundwater
contamination.  IBM has conducted interim remedial activities un-
der RWQCB orders since 1984.  The major components of the final
selected remedy include:

     o  Onsite soil vapor extraction
     o  Onsite shallow and deep groundwater extraction  and treatr
        ment with airstripping
     o  Offsite deep groundwater extraction and air stripping
        with nozzles into storm drains
     o  Onsite recharge of treated groundwater to maximum extent
        feasible  .  •      ...
     o  Discharge to surface water under NPDES permit of any
        treated groundwater remaining after reuse capacity ex-
        hausted .

DECLARATION                      -    - '   -

     EPA concurs with the remedy selected by the RWQCB  for the
IBM site.

     The selected remedy is protective of human health  and the
environment, attains Federal and state requirements that  are  ap-
plicable or relevant and appropriate to the remedial action,  and
is cost effective.  This remedy satisfies the statutory
preference for remedies that reduce toxicity, mobility, and/or

-------
volume as a principal element.  It also utilizes permanent solu-
tions to the maximum extent practicable.  The 5-year facility
review provision has been included as part of the RWQCB Site
Cleanup Requirements Order.
Date
                                                LO
  iniel W. McGovern
Regional Administrator

-------
   PART 2






STAFF REPORT

-------
                                                                  Hit Me. 2189.803KIAA)

                    REGIONAL WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD
                        SAN FRANCISCO BAY REGION
                                  INTERNAL MEMO


TO: Steven R. Ritchie, Executive Officer         FROM: Belinda A. Alien

DATE:  September 27, 1988                     SIGNATURE: /s/Belinda A. Allen

SUBJECT:    DRAFT REMEDIAL ACTION PLAN FOR
              INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINES,
              SAN JOSE FACILITY

The purpose of this staff report is to provide the basis for, and a description of, the draft final
remedial action plan for the International Business Machines (IBM) site.  Tentative Orders for IBM's
Site Cleanup Requirements (SCR) and a NPDES permit are based on this staff report

This staff report k organized as follows: 1) Background; 2) Plan Development; 3) Plan Description; 4)
Recommendations.

                                     BACKGROUND

International Business Machines (IBM) operates and owns a facility that manufactures  data processing
machines, including disks and mass storage systems at 5600 Cottle  Road in the City of San Jose, Santa
Clara County  (Figure 1).  Construction of the facility began in 1955 on land previously used for
agricultural purposes.  The facility has been in operation since December  1956.  IBM  used organk
•bemicals such as 1,1,1-trichloroethane (TCA). Freon 11, Freon 12, Freon 113, isopropyl alcohol (IPA),
 ylene,  acetone, petroleum naphthas and others.  Organic chemicals have been handled and stored in
oottles,  drums, above ground tanks, and under ground tanks.

Waste organic solvents were conveyed from, in some  cases, intermediate waste sumps and stored in
concrete or steel underground tanks (1000 or 6000 gallons) or in 55 gallon drums. The concrete tanks
were designed to only store inorganic wastes, but-organic chemical wastes were also stored in the
concrete tanks.

Release  Discovery

In October 1980,  the discharger discovered TCA, petroleum naphtha and zylenes in soil during
excavation of tanks in Tank Farm No. 1.  The same month, the discharger confirmed that a release of
chemicals had  occurred and reported the release to Regional Board staff.  Chemical analyses indicated
that the soil in the source area  contained up to 110 pot of TCA, 16.00&ppm petroleum naphtha, and
1,100 ppm xylenes.   Inr November 1981. additional investigation revealed extensive ground water
pollution. At that time a comprehensive she-wide investigation program was initiated, as requested by
Regional Board staff. Other sources of pollution were found, including a significant source of Freon
113.  IBM was required to def:ne the extent of all pollution, both in the soil and ground water, for
each source.  IBM has since identified at  least nineteen sources, but has not yet fully identified the
location of three sources of chenr -*ls.  IBM determined that the releases to soil and groundwater were
due to tank and pipeline fitting failures, tank and sump overflows, spillage  from drum handling, and
other releases.
                                       ^continues

-------
 DRAFT REMEDIAL ACTION PLAN FOR                             Page 2 ,
 INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINES,                            September 27, 1988
 SAN JOSE FACILITY
 Geology

 A geologic study was conducted on both the Santa Teresa Basin, where the facility is located, and the
 San Jose Plain, which is located downgradfent of the Santa Teresa Basin. These are both sub-basins
 of the Santa Clara Basin.  Edenvale Gap, located between Oak Hill  and Edenvale Ridge is the
 geographic boundary and hydraulic connection between the Santa Teresa Basin and San  Jose Plain
 (Figure 2).

 The geology in the vicinity of the facility consists of alluvium extending below the ground surface to
 bedrock, a depth of more than 400 feet. "Hm alluvial formation generally contains more than five
 silty clay layers which vary from a few feet to more than 30 feet in thickness separating more than
 six aquifers.  These aquifers are referred to as A. B, C. P. E. F, and G aquifers, with A  being the
 most shallow.

 The general depths of these aquifers below ground surface are as follows:  A occurs  between 20 to 50
 feet, B lies between SO and 95 feet, C is between 90 and 125 feet and D is between  140 and 160 feet,
 E is between 170 and 205 feet, F is between 230 and 260 feet, and G is between 270 and 275 feet.
 In some locations, these individual aquifers merge. Also, these aquifer depths are very general; a
 major portion of the facility lies above the top of the A  aquifer by only 15 to 25 feet

 The Edenvale Gap appears to be primarily merged BC and D aquifers (Figure  3). The San  Jose Plain
 geology is similar to the Santa Teresa Basin, with the difference that aquifer zones are-less continuous
 and thicker and the alluvium may be more than 750 feet thick to bedrock in  some  areas of the sub-
 basin.

 Santa Teresa Basin acts as a forebay area.  As a forebay area, the sub-basin recharges water through
 the Edenvale Gap into the San Jose Plain.  Groundwater flop's northwesterly from the site towards
 Edenvale Gap  and downward from  the shallow to deep aquifers.  Continued  pumping, for water
 supply and ground water remediation, combined with less efficient induced recharge from ponds and
 low rainfall, has contributed to overdraft conditions in  the Santa Teresa  Basin.  The  overdraft
 condition has caused declines in groundwater levels.  Lowered ground water levels in the B aquifer
 have caused the B aquifer to change from a confined to a semi-confined aquifer in some areas.

 Remedial Investigation

 IBM  has  installed  more  than 300 monitoring  and  extraction  wells  to aid  in  plume
characterization, source control, and remediation.  The plume of chemicab from the site
 measures more than three miles in length extending  northwesterly from the discharger's facility
 past the intersection of Monterey Road and Capitol Expressway (Figure 4) and is more than 180
 feet in depth.  In the plume area known as the Defined  Area (Figure 2), the plume is laterally
 defined to 3 ppb.  This area extends to  near the intersection of Monterey Road and Capitol
 Expressway north of which is an area  referred  to as  the  Undefined Area.  In a few wells in the
 Undefined Area  TCA and Freon  113 have been detecte- in private and municipal wells at
 levels up to 2.8 ppb Freon  113 and up to 3.3 ppb  TCA.  These results, antf  f.he direction of
 ground water flow in  this area, suggest that the plume extt ids significantly beyond the Defined
 Area.  IBM is the only identified or known responsible party associated with the defined  area of
 the plume, which extends from the facility northerly to the Edenvale Gap.       —-

The issue of whether or not further plume definition was necessary beyond the intersection of
 Monterey Road and Capitol Expressway was brought to the Board in Order No. 84-90 on  December
 18, 1984.  The  Regional Board found in Order No.  84-90, Finding 11 and  the State Board supported
 this finding in  Order WQ No.86-8.  IH.a.. that the degradation in the Undefined Area would not

-------
DRAFT REMEDIAL ACTION PLAN FOR                            Page 3
INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINES,                           September 27. 1988
SAN JOSE FACILITY


unreasonably affect beneficial uses and no further remediation was consistent with  the maximum
benefit to the people of the State; therefore, further plume definition was not required.  However, the
Regional Board did find that if additional data, methods of data evaluation, geological information,
revised health guidance, or other  issues which may impact the Regional Board's finding  that beneficial
uses were not unreasonably affected were developed, then the Board may consider altering that
finding in the future.

IBM has identified several wells in the Defined Region which could be or have been potential
conduits.  These potential conduits may have transmitted chemicals to deeper aquifers.  These wells
have been properly destroyed, are scheduled for destruction, or cannot be located. Some wells cannot
be found because they  ar» under buildings, oarkint lots or streets, or are buried with no evidence of
their location.

Migration Control and Source Removal

Activities tc prevent further solvent migration  from the IBM source areas include removal of the
solvent  sto: .^e  tanks,  excavation  of  soil containing pollutants and extraction  of groundwater
containing pollutants.  IBM has removed more than 23,000 cubic yards  of soil from the source areas
on site.  Starting in 1981 and  continuing to 1985, the  underground tanks were replaced  with above
ground storage tanks on the site. By September 1980, most of the underground  solvent tanks were
removed and replaced  in above  ground concrete vaults which allow for visual inspection  to detect
leakage. The vaults are  also coated to prevent leakage into surrounding soil. Additionally, the shallow
concrete trenches comprising the underground conveyance network have been substantially replaced
with coated trenches or tunnels.

.nterim remedial measures to cleanup the plume have included off site and onsite groundwater
extraction since  November 1982.  The discharger has installed and currently operates a three
tiered groundwater extraction well system composed of more than  13 extraction wells located
throughout the plume.  Laterally, the plume is  hydraulically controlled.  Operation of the
extraction wells has minimized  further plume  migration, slightly reduced the size of the plume,
and reduced solvent concentrations  within the  plume. However, localized  areas of higher
pollutant  concentrations within the plume may contribute to  further interaquifer transfer  via
leaky aquitards and potential conduits.

Due  to declining  groondwater  level  effects oa interim  remediation, the Regional Board allowed IBM
to reduce extraction as ordered in Regional Board Order No. 88-45 which amends Order No. 84-90.
Groundwater extraction was reduced by  about 73% from 8,900 acre feet/year to 2,400 acre feet/year
and nine of the thirteen extraction wells were akat down to save about €,500 acre feet/year of
groundwater.

The extracted groundwater has been discharged under NPDES  Permits in Order No.  83-37 and No.
83-39.  primarily without treatment to storm  drains  leading to Canoas Creek which is
tributary to Guadalupe River  and flows into the south San Francisco  Bay.  Recharge from Canoas
Creek may occur  to a. slight degree.  Pollutan.* are found at nondetectable levels, which are less than
1 ppb for each  TCA and Freon 113,  at the confluence of Guadalupe River  and  Canoas Creek.
Guadalupe River provides significant recharge TO  groundwater aquifers along its length.

WaterSupolv Well Imnaets                                                 -«-

 ourteen water supply wells are known to exist as active or potentially active wells down gradi-
ent within the  defined plume area (Figure  5). Three  active  water supply wells are known to
exist within 300 feet of the defined area plume boundaries.  Two public drinking water supply
wells (Great Oaks Wells No. 2 and 8) have been affected by the IBM plume and  were found to

-------
 DRAFT REMEDIAL ACTION PLAN FOR                            Page 4
 INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINES.                            September 27. 1988
 SAN JOSE FACILITY


 contain volatile organic chemicals (VOC'S).  The- VOC concentrations in the Great Oaks well
 have been below current DHS drinking water action levels and federal drinking water standards.
 In January 1983, Great Oaks  Water Company decided to stop regular service from Well No. 2
 and  Well  No. 8, which was a  standby well, and had not been used as a drinking water source
 since May 1983. Great Oaks  Well  No. 2 is now intermittently used  as a standby well  during
 peaks in water demand. A third well. Great Oaks well No. 14. was also found to contain low
 levels of  VOC's, but Well  No. 14 was an inactive irrigaticn well which had not been used for
 drinking water supply and has subsequently been destroyed.

 la the past five yean, only five private wells were found to contain more than an average of 11
 ppb  Freon or TCA.  In one of the  five wells. «he highest levels of VOCs (430 ppb Freon  113
 and  140 ppb TCA in 1983), were all below th« Department of Healtu Services drinking water
 action levels.  Use of this well for drinking water was discontinued in  May 1983.  As a result ©f
 clean-up  measures undertaken by IBM; this well currently contains 20 ppb Freon 113 and 9.0
 ppb  TCA; nine drinking water wells monitored in the plume area have oondetected concentre^
 tions at less than 0.5 ppb detection limits;  four drinking water wells  contain no more than 1.0
 ppb  of Freon and 0.4 ppb TCA. Eight water supply wells have  been taken out of service and
 destroyed since the investigation began.
The discharger has submitted a report containing a study oT the effects of diicfl-.^in . volatile
organic chemicals  to Canoas Creek on grouadwaters which may be recharged by the creek.
Drinking water wells located about 2800 feet westerly of Canoas Creek were found to contain
groundwater with  a maximum of 2.4 ppb TCA which does  not affect  beneficial use.  The
connection, if any,  between the IBM discharge and the occurrence of chemicals in these wells is
not known.  San Jose Water Company plans to operate these wells on a standby, basis once Snell
pipeline water is  available to She water company.  No additional investigation of Canoas Creer
recharge is planned due to the very low concentrations of chemicals currently being discharges
into the creek by IBM and the insignificance of recharge in Canoas  Creek.

Governmental Regulation of Investigation and  Remediation

In October 1984. the United States  Environmental Protection  Agency (EPA) proposed  that the IBM
site  be placed on the federal Superfund list.  Pursuant to the South Bay Multi-Site Cooperative
Agreement, as subsequently amended, catered into in May 2* 1985, by the Board, EPA and DHS, the
Board has been acting as the lead regulatory agency. DHS and EPA have reviewed and commented
on the comprehensive plan. During the almost four years that the IBM site was a  proposed
CERCLA site, investigation and cleanup  was regulated based on CERCLA requirements.  Siaee
June 2J, J988, the  IBM  site has been proposed to become J JtCRA lite  and be dropped from
cottsiderttion  as a CERCLA site,  la the event the IBM site becomes t RCRA site,  the Regional
Board will continue to regulate the remediation and enforce under CERCLA as  amended by
SARA.

The  Board adopted Waste Discharge  Requirements in Order No. 84-90 on December 18, 1984 for the
discharger's interim site remediation.  The State Board adopted Order No. WQ 86-8 which clarified
the Regional Board Order and responded  to appeals on Order  No.  84-90.  Order No. 84-90 was
amended on March 16. 1988 by  Regional  Board Order  No. 88-45.  The State  Board adopted
Resolution No. 88-88 on July 21.  1988 in response to the issue  of waste and  unreasonable use of
groundwater from  remediation activities. This Site Cleanup Requirement  Order rescinds Order No.
84-90 and 88-45. This Order sets tasks and  submittal dates for final site remedJatSoa.

On July 21. 1988. the  State Board adopted Resolution No.  18-88 which required that IBM as
Fairchild remediation plans must result in  beneficial use of, or treatment and  recharge  to tkfe
Santa Teresa  Basin, of a  significant amount of extracted groundwater.  If ase  of recharge of

-------
 DRAFT REMEDIAL ACTION PLAN FOR                            Page 5
 INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINES.                           September 27,  1988
 SAN JOSE FACILITY


  gnificant amounts  is not proposed, IBM shall fully justify reasons for not using or recharging
 the groundwater.  The justification must also demonstrate why continued pumping  is  necessary
 from  the  standpoints of public health,  protection of potential  and present beneficial  uses,
 maintaining high quality water, and providing the maximum benefit to the people of the State.

                             FLAN DEVELOPMENT

 Development of the  remedial action plan was based on federal and state regulations, policy and
 guidance for remedial action plans and  feasibility studies.  The purpose of the plan was  to provide a
 conceptual framework for remedial design of additional remediation activities by IBM and to establish
 remediation levels.

 IBM submitted a comprehensive plan as required by Regional Board Order No. 84-90 and State  Board
 Order WQ No. 86-8.  This comprehensive plan is also  consistent with the Health and  Safety Code
 requirements for a final remedial action  plan (RAP)  and the National Contingency Plan (NCP)
 requirements for a remedial investigation and feasibility study (RI/FS).

 The comprehensive plan was reviewed by  the staffs of the Regional Board, Department of Health
 Services, and the United States Environmental Protection Agency (BPA).

.This comprehensive  plan contains a proposed final remedial-action plan, proposed  remediation
 levels, a remediation alternatives evaluation, water conservation plan, contingency plans for
 abort  term sub-basin management and  a  public  health evaluation.  The objectives for the
 selected draft remedial action plan are to 1) protect public health and the environment, 2) attain
 Appropriate and relevant, and applicable regulations  (ARARs), 3) be cost-effective, 4) utilize
 Hermanent solutions and alternative treatment technologies to the maximum extent  possible Tor
 short  term effectiveness, 5)  implementable, 6) acceptable based on State regulations, policies,
 and guidance,  7) reduce toxicity, mobility,  or  volume as  a principal element of the draft
 remedial action plan, and 8) addresses the concerns of the public.

 Alternatives Evaluation   .

 As required by  the Health and Safety  Code Section  25356.1. CERCLA as amended by SARA, and
 Regional Board  guidance, the draft RAP was developed from an evaluation of six alternative plans.
 Each plan would provide different levels of remediation at various costs.

 The objectives of each alternative were:

     I  - No further remediation
    2  - Protection of  beneficial uses
    3  - Aquifer protection
    4  - Aquifer protection with a safety factor
    5  - Restore  to background quality
    6  - Aquifer protection with safety factor assuming van Jon in groundwater levels.

 The discharger  has based its  evaluation  of remediation -Uernatives  and  remediation  levels on the
 Hazard Index concept.   Since each chemical detected in the soil and groundwater has its own
 toxicUy characteristics, the Hazard Index approach allows for dec;
-------
DRAFT REMEDIAL ACTION PLAN FOR                               Page 6
INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINES,                              September 27, 1988
SAN JOSE FACILITY


The NCHI is calculated as shown below using denominator values as listed in Table 3.

                 n
                     (actual concentration  of each chemical in oob)
                     (each chemical's Table 3 concentration in ppb)
               i- 1
For example:

                    ppb TCA         ppb Frwn 113      ppb 1.1-DCE    ppb TCI
                    ........... + .................... « ............. * .......... * ,(( • BCMI
                    200 ppb TCA   1«;000 ppb froon 113   « m 1.1-OCf  52 ppb TC£


  The CHI is similarly calculated as shown using denominator values as listed in Table 4.
                     n
                        factual concentration of each chemical in nob)
                        (each chemical's Table 4 concentration in ppb)
                    i- 1

  A NCHI value greater than 1.0 indicates that health  effects may occur due to long term exposure.  A
  CHI value greater than 1.0 indicates a possible additional one in a million cancer risk from drinking
  two liters of water directly from the aquifer for .70 years.  This risk is in addition to the every day
  one in four risk of contracting cancer.  Department of Health* Services (DHS) and the EPA have also
  reviewed the  discharger's  proposed use  of Hazard  Indices  and found that  the  indices appear to  be
  justified for drinking water based on available data.  These values  may increase  or decrease  l_jed  sa
  possible future changes in action levels or other'safe drinking water standards for these  pollutants.

  Alternatives one  through five were based on stable basin  groundwater conditions.   Alternative 6 h
  comprised of  three contingency plans each of which would be implemented depending on changing
  basin  conditions.
               Alt.
               If tmbtr        Actifrp                fttfOMdiftiioo £»w•!               Covt

               I       No further cleaaup                                           |SM,000/yr

               3       Operate M fraoBdwiter          Acairr* driakiaf • •>•!•           $1,760,000
                       extraction walk far
                            10;
                                                                                93,630,000
                       extraction v*Uf for              !•*•!• fai UM aquifer*,             phis
                       •bout 10 yean.
                       Operate up to 66 (round          Achtara on* fourth or .   ~    '   $14,400,000
                       water extraction well*,           MM th»a UM driakiac            plut
                       traat aad r*ch«m              vater Wr«I* ia UM               $3 JUOjOOO/fT
                       fTouadvater ia *«oBd« far         •quifen.
                       •bout 30 ymn.

                       K« fMdbU op^oe               Total rvmor*] of
                       touad for thi* «*•.              chemiralt from aoQ
                                                   •ad (rouadvkter.

                       Operate op to M               Achtor* OM fourth or         ""^,100^00 to
                       (roundvtter extraction           MM of UM driakiac               llS.TOO.OOO
                       v«lb, trmt, MUM mad            water lrr*b la UM               ptut
                       r*ch%r(« grouadwater for         aquifer.                       f 1,700,000/fr
                       •bout 30 jr«»Tf. Coataias                                       to
                       S eoBtiafvacr plaai to                                        $3,300,000/yr
                       fwpoad to chaafiac
                       frouDdwater [

-------
DRAFT REMEDIAL ACTION PLAN FOR                             Page 7
INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINES.                            September 27, 1988
SAN JCSE FACILITY


The technical report  "Draft Comprehensive Plan* dated June 1987,  Draft Supplement Comprehensive
Plan' dated April 29,  1988. and revisions to the reports contain  a more  detailed description and
evaluation of these alternatives.

IBM initially  proposed Alternative 4 until it was  determined that  changing groundwater basin
conditions were contributing to overdraft, as a result of reduced rainfall, increased water supply  and
remediation groundwater extraction, and reduced artificial recharge. The overdraft conditions posed
technical difficulties, i.e., groundwater may not be consistently available, for continued and expanded
groundwater extraction and cleanup  required by Alternative 4.  Therefore,  IBM proposed Alternative
6 after it  was evaluated in the IBM report "Draft Supplement Comprehensive Plan* dated April 29,
1988, amended July 25. 1988.

Alternative 6, as described and proposed in the draft Supplement, does not completely meet staff
concerns.  As a result, the plan described in this staff report is t modification of the Alternative 6
plan proposed by IBM.  The differences between the two plans are described  later in this report


                               PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT

There has been active public involvement throughout the whole  process of  devloping the remediation
plans. All Regional Board orders which called for, or modified,the cleanup plans have been adopted at
public hearings (Regional Board in December 1984 and March 1988; State  Board in March and June
1986 and again in February and  June 1988).  In preparation for adoption of the final Remedial Action
Plans the Regional Board took the following actions to involve the  public in determining aacceptable
alternatives and in the final decision-making:

      a.     Sent out three fact sheets to over  1300 persons each mailing.  These persons
             included adjacent neighbors  within  300 feet of IBM, local government  officials
             both appointed and elected, the water utilities  utilizing the  groundwater, and
             those interested  individuals that responded to several newspaper advertisements
             announcing the RI/FS process and decision-making.

      b.     The Board staff  held a night-time public workshop  in August in the vicinity  @f
             the IBM facilities.

      c.     The Board  conducted a>public hearing in San Jose  to receive testimony  on the
             RI/FS and Remedial Action Plan.

      d.     The tentative remediation plan was widely distributed twice — once in August
             with over a 30 day  comment period — and again in October  (with responses to
             comments from the first distribution).                    ~

      e.     The Administrative  Record has  been available to  the  public  since  the
             announcement of the tentative remediation pl-n.  The draft and  amended
             versions of the remediation plan have been available to the public in  the Santa
             Teresa Public Library in the vicinity of IBM since December 1986 as well as
             available in other libraries since August. Additionally, the plans and files of the
             Regional Board, to  include the proposed and amended  remediation  plans,  have
             been open to the public at all times since the initial discovery anTooard action.

      f.     The Final Remedial Action Plan (RI/FS) will  be  adopted by the  Board  in a
             public hearing where final comments on the Plan and Board staff response may
             be offered by the interested public.

-------
 DRAFT REMEDIAL ACTION PLAN FOR                              Ptge 8
 INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINES.                             September 27. 1988
 SAN JOSE FACILITY


                              RECOMMENDED PLAN

 This draft remedial  action plan (RAP) is meant to be a comprehensive plan which addresses all
 aspects of soil and groundwater remediation, treatment, discharge, and reclamation. This describes
 how the draft plan would be implemented as recommended by staff and how the draft plan meets the '
 objectives for protection of public health  and the environment, attaining appropriate, relevant, and
 applicable regulations (ARARs), being cost effective, utilizing permanent solutions, and reducing
 toxicity, mobility, and volume.        '

 Plan Description

 The draft RAP is composed of three contingency plane

 1)  Remedial Action Plan, which is • contingency plan,.for stable basin conditions.
 2)  Contingency 1  for rising groundwater levels and improving basin conditions.
 3)  Contingency 2 for falling groundwater levels and declining basin conditions.

 As discussed  below,  these contingency plans are similar with the exceptions that under increased
 overdraft conditions DO additional extraction wells would be installed and full scale recharge may not
 be implemented.  This plan may need to be modified  in the future based on manage  ;nt of the basin
 and on the inherent uncertainties of yearly rainfall amounts and based on the performance evaluation
 to be conducted every  five  years after this order is adopted.  Remediation levels for soil aad
 groundwater may be attained within ten to twenty, years:


 Remedial design  and initial implementation of  the draft RAP would be dependent upon results
studies to be conducted during the year following RAP approval. These studies would evaluate:

 1-    Irrigation, cooling tower use, and lake storage use seasonal patterns.
2 -    Santa  Teresa Basin conditions as a result of increased recharge pond efficiency and reduction
       of groundwater withdrawals in the nib-basin.                              " .      .
3 •    Pilot study of in-sirv soil aeration and full scale project feasibility.
4 -    Air stripper pilot  plam and treatabflity of IBM  polluted groundwater.

Implementation of the draft remedial action plan, as modified, would require:

       Installation of additional groundwater extraction wells in the A aquifer.   These wells would
       help prevent further migration of  high  chemical concentration! from She A aquifer and «©
       accelerate remediation of groundwater saturated areas of the A aquifer.  Remediation levels in
       the A aquifer would be to drinking water health criteria, standards, or action levels for each
       chemical, as listed in Table 2.    . .  ~    -   .

       Completion of pilot studies  for in-situ soil  aeration to  determine the feasibility of full scale
       projects to  remediate vnsatnrated soils in  release areas on the IBM property.  The goal for soil
       remediation is 1 ppm of chemicals  in the soil depending upon  technical feasibility which will
       be determinec during pilot studies for soil cleanup.  Some of the chemicals in the soil *nay not
       be removed as efficiently, or at all compared to other chemicals.  Therefore, a remediation goal
 r    rather than a level is recc .mended.                                 —w-

       Installation  of additional extraction  wells  in  the B and possibly deeper aquifers.   The purpo-
       of the  B wells would  be to prevent further  lateral and downward migration of pollutan
       However, use of  the B extraction wells may be limited due to the overdraft condition of the
       sub-basin.  As a  modification of the IBM proposal, staff recommend the discharger prevent
       migration of the 0.25 NCHI  and 1.0 CHI plumes. Extraction from deep aquifer wells need not
       occur unless water levels in the  B aquifer are  so low as to prevent migration control.

-------
DRAFT REMEDIAL ACTION PLAN FOR                             Page 9
INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINES,                            September 27, 1988
SAN JOSE FACILITY


       Remediation levels in the B and deeper aquifers would be 0.25 NCHI and 1.0 CHI as well as
       one fourth the noncarcinogen drinking water action level or health criteria for each chemical
       and the one in one million risk concentration for each carcinogen, as listed in Table 2.

       The recommended draft remedial action plan does not provide for remediation below
       remediation levels of 0.25 NCHI. IBM  provided a sensitivity analysis of the costs and
       impacts of remediating down  to  0.1 NCHI  which showed increased costs  of about 73%
       more than  the  cost for remediation to 0.2S NCHI and   would require extracting large
       volumes of  groundwater to remove  small amounts of  chemicals. The possibility  exists
       that the final remediation plan will be  more efficient and rapid than expected.  If that is
       the case, additional cleanup   may be appropriate for Regional Board consideration at a
       later  date  to comply with the State Board policy to maintain tne high quality of waters
       in the State of California.

       Sequential shut down for off site extraction wells once remediation goals  have been achieved
       and maintained at each monitoring  and extraction well. In accordance with State Board Order
       No. 86-90  the Regional Board will base its decision on  an evaluation  of monitoring data
       obtained after  temporary shutdown of extraction wells prior to permanent abandonment of
       extraction  wells. Monitoring after final abandonmec   rf the wells will determine the effects
       on chemical migration due to natural groundwater flow.

       Reclamation of the extracted groundwater by recharge  into shallow aquifers and  reuse by IBM.
       This reclamation of groundwater is necessary to help aid the remediation of the shallow
       aquifers.  The amount of groundwater reused by IBM for irrigation, cooling tower makeup
       flow, and fire water storage would be offset by a decrease in pumping of water supply wells
       owned by IBM.  Recharge of the groundwater after treatment would occur via injection wells.
       The treated groundwater would be injected in the A and B aquifers npgradient of the IBM
       plume to aid in  groundwater remediation (Figure 6).  Recharge pilot studies will be conducted
       to determine the feasibility of and provide  remedial design for a full scale  recharge. A
    .   goal of optimized groundwater reuse and recharge is proposed to be  100% of the total
       amount of groundwater extracted from both on and off site extraction wells.  However,
       IBM has stated  that if water quality  or quantity is  not sufficient enough  during Contin-
       gency 2 (falling groundwater levels) basin conditions, reuse may prove infeasible.

    .   Treatment  of the  polluted groundwater  by two types of treatment.  One type of treatment
       would be air stripping of groundwater from long and short term extraction in the A aquifer,
       both on and  off site, and from long term extraction in the B aquifer on  site.  Depending OB
      the basin conditions,  two air strippers may be constructed. One air stripper would be wsed
       solely for the highly polluted groundwater from on  site release areas.  The quality of this
       groundwater may be highly variable and treated effluent quality may not  be consistent.
       However, a level of 5 ppb for  each chemical is proposed  for discharges to the storm drain.
       The other  air stripper would only be used for the less polluted groundwater except when
       overdraft conditions are present, then it would also treat groundwater from the release areas
       unless the other air stripper has already been  constructed.   Treatmr ;t of less polluted
  ,, -;  groundwater would provide groundwater containing 1 ppb total VOCs on the  average and a
       maximum of 5 ppb total VOCs.  This is the treated groundwater which would be used for
       recharge and reuse.

       The second type of treatment is nozzle discharge of polluted groundwater  into manholes.  This
       treatment consists of forcing the  extracted groundwater flowing in a large  diameter pipe
       through a narrow diameter pipe in a manhole.  Aeration of the polluted groundwater occurs
       due to the increased turbulence produced by the nozzle and the distance that the treated
       groundwater falls in the manhole to continue its journey down the storm drain.   Nozzle
       treatment has been found to remove up to 50% of VOC concentrations.  Staff consider nozzle
       treatment to be best available  treatment which is economically achievable (BATEA) of the

-------
DRAFT REMEDIAL ACTION PLAN FOR                             Page 10
INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINES,                             September 27, 1988
SAN JOSE FACILITY


       groundwater from the 8 tod deeper aquifers off lite, due to economic feasibility, protectk
       of the environment,  limited operation time, and siting constraints.  Additionally, use of nozzle
       allows for increased flexibility in implementation of the RAP. Groundwater extraction rates
       will vary according to the number of extraction wells in operation.  As basin conditions
       permit, additional extraction wells may be installed along with nozzle treatment without the
       considerable delay  associated with construction of conventional treatment systems and
       pipelines.   Aiso, as  remediation levels are met, extraction  wells would be temporarily shut
       down and discharge flow would decrease.

       Untreated groundwater will be discharged to storm drains leading to Canoas Creek on  an
       interim  basis.  Until the treatment systems are in operation, long  term discharges from
       aquifer remediation will  be untreated.   Short term discharges re«ult from monitoring well
       sample collection and aquifer testing.  The, purge water from  sample collection will  be
       untreated for B and deeper aquifer  monitoring wells.  This untreated water will  be
       discharged to the storm  drain nearest  to the monitoring  well.  Prior to treatment system
       operation,  the purge  water from the A aquifer will be collected and either treated with
       the existing small treatment system on site or diluted with cleaner groundwater prior to
       discharge.

Maior Differences Between IBM Proposal and L  ' ft RAP

The technical reports submitted  by IBM contain its proposal for • draft  RAP and feasibility  study.
IBM's proposal is conceptually acceptable with some exceptions.   The draft RAP, as explained above,
is a modification  of the IBM proposal.  There are major differences between  the  two plans, as
summarized below:

       Staff recommend that IBM control vertical and lateral migration of the 0.25 NCHI and  .
       CHI plume boundaries during Contingency 2 conditions.    IBM does aot propose vertieal
       migration control of concentrations above remediation levels during any of  the contingeeey
       conditions.

       Staff propose full scale recharge and reuse during Contingency 2 basin conditions.  IBM
       proposes only pilot scale recharge and reuse only if  significant quantities of groundwater ere
       being extracted.                                                     ......

       Staff propose extraction and piezometer well cluster  installation at the  location of  the
       leading edge of the plume above remediation levels if necessary. IBM does not propose
       installation of the B  aquifer extraction wells nnless non-contingency 2 conditions exist.
       Additionally, IBM  proposes piezometer installation only if necessary.  Staff  find  that
       piezometer installation  and  monitoring of extraction  well  capture zones  are  always
       necessary to confirm  capture areas.

       In  order .to assure that significant concentrations of  chemicals do  not pass through  the
       Ldenvale Cap, which could impact down gradient drinking water wells and  users, staff
       proposes the following  additional measures of compliance:

       a.     Concentration limits be added for chemicals in the groundwater  in  the Cap.
             Thes  limits are 30 ppb for Freon and TCA and 0.6 ppb for
      b.     The groundwater in  the Cap be  monitored with  an tctive  pumping well  to L~'?
             assure representative sampling of water passing through  the Gap.

      If remediation costs increase or decrease from the expected costs, the Board should consider
      whether or not to raise or lower remediation levels.  IBM proposes that remediation levels only
      be raised if justified based on cost and technical feasibility.

-------
 DRAFT REMEDIAL ACTION PLAN FOR                             Page 11
 INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINES.                            September 27. 1988
 SAN JOSE FACILITY


       Ground water reuse goals have been raised from 50 to 100%.

 Remedial Action Objective^

 The draft RAP would provide remediation of  the aquifer in order to meet the following
 objectives:

 Objective 1 - Protection of Public Health and the Environment

 The draft RAP remedy  is protective of human health and the environment by preventing further
 vertical or horizontal migration of chemical concentrations above remediation levels in the shallow
 aquifer and by treating  the extracted groundwater prior  to disposal.  It also prevents migration of
 chemicals above remediation levels into the deeper drinking water aquifer and Canoas Creek.  By
 stopping  the migration of chemicals and treating the extracted groundwater, potential threats to She
 environment posed by allowing chemicals to enter Canoas Creek, Guadalupe River, and the local
 aquifers are reduced.

 Objective 2 - Comply with Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate Regulations

 The draft RAP will meet all substantive ARARs for the shallow and deep groundwater aquifers.  The
 numerical limits that apply to the shallow and deep aquifers are listed in Tables 1 and 2.             •

 One major ARAR  is the State Board  Resolution 68-16 "Statement of Policy  with Respec* to
 Maintaining High Quality of Waters in California*.  This1 policy requires that any change in water
 quality  must be consistent with maximum public benefit and not unreasonably affect beneficial uses.
 The proposed remediation levels,  based on currently available information, are acceptable at this eite
 given that the limited  degradation would not exceed any established water quality policies, the water
 quality  is well below  applicable health criteria,  and degradation  has already  occurred and would
 not unreasonably affect beneficial uses.                              -

 If new information indicates remediation levels cannot be reasonably attained or can be reasonably
 surpassed, the Board will decide if further final remediation actions beyond those completed  to attais
 remediation levels  shall be implemented at this lite based, to a significant degree, on the information
 developed from draft RAP implementation.  If changes  in health criteria, administrative requirement,
 site conditions, or remediation efficiency occur, the discharger will submit an evaluation of Che
 effects of these changes on remediation  levels.

Objective 3 - Cost Effectiveness

 This draft RAP is cost effective based on an evaluation of costs for the entire draft RAP, including
Croundwater and soil remediation, reclamation, and soil and groundwater treatment

Objective 4 -  Utilizes Permanent Solutions and Alternative Treatment Technologies to the Maximum
              Extent Practicable.

The draft RAP meets  the SARA preference for permanent solutions to the maximum extent
practicable.  It will remove the chemicals form the soil and groundwater and will eliminate the
 threat to human health  and the environment                               _,-

Objective 5 - Reduces Toxicity. Mobility, and Volume

The draft RAP focuses on treatment of the groundwater to specified remediation levels.   This
treatment technology  will reduce the toxicity of the chemicals by reducing  their concentrations
aad rendering them harmless.   Mobility is  reduced by use of the groundwater extraction system.
preventing the further spread  of the plumes.  Also, by extracting and treating the shallow

-------
 DRAFT REMEDIAL ACTION PLAN FOR                             Page 12
 INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINES,                            September 27, 1988
 SAN JOSE FACILITY


 groundwater, it is expected that the volumes of the plumes will be reduced.

 Objective 6 - Meets Public Acceptance

 The modified draft RAP should meet public acceptance based upon the comments received and
 changes made in the RAP as recommended for the October 19 Board meeting.  The public has
 has had access to and  been involved in the decision-making process  during the entire process.
 While not all public comments could be  accommodated in the recommended alternative, it is
 believed that public acceptance will be met with the proposed plan.

                IMPACTS RESULTING  FKOM DRAFT RAP IMPLEMENTATION

 Implementation of this draft RAP will impact the public and environment as described below.

 One impact will be to residential roads and property.  Pipes, nozzles, and  possibly manholes will need
 to be installed in localized areas near the  extraction wells.  Additional extraction and monitoring wells
 would be installed on private property, once property  owners grant access.  This proposed off site
 construction may interfere with traffic flow and residents in the area. This interference would last
 for the construction time necessary for each treatment unit and pipe to be installed.

 A second impact will be redistribution of chemicals from the  gronndwater to the air, surface waters
 of landfills. The proposed aeration treatment without activated carbon air scrubbers would transfer
 dilute concentrations of chemicals from the groundwater to the air.  If scrubbers are used (the
 anticipated cleanup costs include use of scrubbers), then the spent carbon most likely would be
 distributed to either landfills or to incinerators  for chemical breakdown.  Trace concentrations or
 pollutants from Guadalupe River may recharge aquifers and may flow into the southern portion
 the  San Francisco Bay. Due to the large amount of time necessary for complete implementation
 the proposed plan, discharge of pollutants  will continue for the next 10 to  20 yean.

 A third impact would be that low chemical  concentrations  will remain in the aquifer and affect water
 supply wells (Figure 5A).  Chemical concentrations in the  downgradient  water  supply wells,
 especially wells  in the undefined area, may increase,  although it is not expected.  Even minimal
 increases should not impact beneficial uses and will still be protective of human health.

 A fourth impact may result due to aquifer injection of treated grousdwater. There is the potential
 that wells previously unaffected by the IBM pollution would be affected by the injected groundwater
 (Figure 6 ).  The amount of water recharged may be limited to reduce this impact

                                    RECOMMENDATION

 1 -    The draft RAP as described in  this report  should be found acceptable based on the Health and
       Safety Code Section 25356.1.

 2 -    The draft RAP should be considered to meet Section 121  of the Comprehensive Environmental
       Response, Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA) as an equivalent  to a feasibility
       study and found  to be protective of human health  and the environmer'^ attains Applicable or
       Relevant and Appropriate Requirements (ARARs),  is cost  effective, utilizes permanent
       solutions  and alternative treatment technologies and resource recovery technologies to the
       maximum extent possible, and reduces  toxicity, mobility, and VoTume of pollutants and
       addresses the concerns of the public.
Concur. _ V             _ __ Concur
       Wil Bruhns, Section Leader                      Steverf I. Morse, Division Chief

-------
FIGURE 1 - SITE LOCATION

-------
Art* Location*
FIGURE 2 - EDENVALE
                                                                 AREA AM) DEFINED AREA LOCATIONS.

-------
                                                                                 I

untNo

  -	_  __       mrtvffttr
  MO SMA MIMM 10 «t«T NO« »f MM|
3
                                          SAMTA OARA AMD COWTE VALLEYS


                                GEOLOGIC  CROSSECT,ON FROM EDE^ALE CAP TO COYOTE

-------
  IcJ
                  OCMNM.
                 rmNNJCTSDIVISNM
FIGURE «l - IBM PLUME LOCAT

-------
                                      •I—  ^  •••*       i-
                                       I. .'•••>•. -V7» • .  '
                                        I.   '' ' •-''
                                       N-    • ,  '     '••• V   '.'
                                                                                        N
                                                                                  IIQCNO:
                                                                             v •  MM NM CmtMty IBM MnoWomJ

                                                                                  •nd M«n|illal«n Numtai



                                                                            on*
                                                                                  Eiltacltan Localton '





                                                                                  9VOVHV S


                                                                                  [ • If K
                                                                                        WM
                                                                               DRAFT
                                                                                             K/J/C B000I9
FIC4JRE 5 -  GREAT OAKS WATER COMPANY VCLL LOCATIONS

             AND  PRIVATE  VCLL LOCATIONS  IN DEFINED AREA

-------
                                                                     O    Ptwioutfy

                                                                  74 )(    Mvidoned w»n
        Harding Law*** A»t•>!•<••
        Engineers Geologies
        4
                      Wen Location Map
                      Public/Prlvatt Wtlla, R*glon II
                      IBM Ganaral Producu Division
                      San Jose. California
                       S1-9
PK
0733.289.022
4/88
                                                                                   0»'t
          FIGURE 5A -  SAN JOSE VJ^TER  COfPANY
                       IN T>F VfOEFI^CD AP.FA
                                                                        PRIVATE WELLS

-------
FIGIKE 6 - PROPOSED RECHARGE AREA IN RELATION TO GREAT OAKS HATER WELLS

-------
            PART 3






SITE CLEANUP REQUIREMENTS ORDER

-------
                CALIFORNIA REGIONAL'WATER QUALITY CONTROL BOARD
                           SAN FRANCISCO BAY REGION
ORDER NO. 88-157

SITE CLEANUP REQUIREMENTS FOR:

INTERNATIONAL BUSINESS MACHINES
SAN JOSE
SANTA CLARA COUNTY

The  California  Regional Water  Quality Control  Board,  San  Francisco  Bay
Region (hereinafter called the Regional Board)  finds that:

1.   International  Business Machines  (IBM),  hereinafter  called  the
     discharger,  operates   and  owns  a  facility  that  manufactures  data
     processing machines,  including disk  drives  and  ma-ss  storage systems,
     at  5600  Cottle  Road  in  the City  of San  Jose,  Santa  Clara  County
     (Attachment 1).   Construction  of the facility began  in 1955 on land
     previously used  for agricultural  purposes.   The  facility has been in
     operation since December 1956.

2.   The Regional Board  adopted  Waste Discharge  Requirements in Order No.
     84-90  on  December  18,  1984 for  the  discharger's  interim  site
     remediation.    The  State Water Resources Control  Board  (hereinafter
     State Board) adopted  Order No. WQ  86-8  which clarified the Regional
     Board Order and  responded  to appeals on Order No. 84-90.   Order No.
     84-90 was amended on March 16,  1988 by Regional Board  Order No. 88-45.
     This Site Cleanup Requirement Order rescinds Orders No. 84-90 and 88-
     45.   This  Order  sets  tasks and  submittal  dates   for  final  site
     remediation to be consistent with  the Health and* Safety Code and the
     National Contingency Plan.

3.   At  the  facility,  organic  chemicals  are  and  have  been  handled and
     stored in bottles, drums, above  ground tanks, and under ground tanks.
     The discharger  uses organic chemicals  such as  1,1,1-trichloroethane
     (TCA),  Freon 11,  Freon 12,  Freon  113, isopropyl alcohol  (IPA), xylene,
     acetone,  petroleum  naphthas and  other organic  chemicals  during the
     disk manufacturing process.

4.   In October 1980, the  discharger  discovered TCA, petroleum naphtha and
     xylenes  in  soil  during excavation  of  underground  tanks  and after
     confirming that  a  release  of chemicals  had occurred,  reported the
     release  to  Regional   Board  staff.    In  November  1981,  additional
     investigation  revealed extensive  ground water  pollution^?and   a


 BMSCR10/21/88                      -1-

-------
ORDER No. 88-157


    'comprehensive, sice-wide  investigation  program  was  initiated  as
     requested by  Regional  Board  staff.   Other  releases of chemicals from
     the discharger were  found,  including a significant  release  of  Freon
     113.  The  discharger  determined that  the  releases  to  soil  and
     groundwater were  due to  tank and pipeline  fitting  failures,  tank and
     sump overflows, spillage from drum handling, and other releases.

5.   Groundwater investigation was conducted by the discharger in both the
     Santa Teresa  Basin, where  the facility is located,  and  the  San Jose
     ri-ir., which  's located northerly and downgradient  of the Santa Teresa
     Basin (Attachment 2).   Groundwater overdraft conditions are present in
     the Santa Teresa  Basin.   Edenvale Gap, located between  Oak  Hill and
     Edenvale  Ridge is the geographic boundary and  hydraulic connection
    • between the Santa Teresa Basin and the San  Jose Plain.  The geology in
     the vicinity  of the facility  consists of alluvium  extending below the
     ground  surface to  bedrock,   a  depth of  more  than  400  feet.    The
     groundwater flows  northwesterly  from the  site  towards  Edenvale Gap.
     The San Jose  Plain geology   consists of aquifer  zones which are less
     continuous  and thicker than  the  Santa Teresa Basin.   The  San Jose
     Plain alluvium may be more than 750 feet thick from the ground surface
     to bedrock.

6.   The plume  of  volatile chemical  organic  chemicals  laterally extends
     from the  discharger's  property  to beyond Edenvale  Gap.   The area of
     the plume, known as the defined area, is defined to  3 ppb each of TCA
     and Freon 113  and extends  from the discharger's  property to near the
     intersection of Monterey Roau and Capitol  Expressway. Downgradient of
     the defined area and northerly of Edenvale  Gap is the area referred to
     as the undefined area. No monitoring wells have been installed in the
     undefined  area.    Geologic   information  for  the   undefined  area was
     obtained from well  logs for water supply wells located in the
     undefined area. . TCA and  Freon  113 have been detected in private and
     municipal wells located in the undefined area at levels up to 2.8 ppb
     Freon 113 and  up  to 3.3 ppb  TCA.  These results,  and the direction of
     groundwater  flow in  this  area, suggest that   the plume  extends
     significantly  beyond  the defined area.  Pursuant  to the  Health and
     Safety Code  Sections  25356.1 (d)  and  25356.3  (c),  the discharger is
     the only  identified or known responsible party associated  with the
     defined area  of  the  plume,  which extends from the facility  northerly
     to the Edenvale Gap.
7.   The Regional Board found in Order No. 84-90, Finding  11  and  the  State
     Board, supported this  finding  in  Order  WQ No.  86-8,  III.a.,  that  the
     degradation  in  the   undefi-.ed  area  would  not  unreasonably affect
     beneficial uses  and no  further  remediation was  consistent  with  the
IBMSCR10/21/88                      -2-

-------
ORDER No. 88-157
     maximum benefit  Co  che people of the Scate;  therefore,  further plume
     definition was not required based on available  information.

8.   Fourteen  water  supply  wells  are known to  exist  as  active  or
     potentially active wells  down gradient within the defined plume area.
     Three active, wells are  known  to  exist  within  300 feet of the defined
     area  plume  boundary  of  1 ppb Freon 113.   Some of  these  public and
     private  drinking  water  supply  wells   have  been  affected by  che
     discharger's plume and are found to contain volatile  organic chemicals
     (VOC's)  below Departmenc of Health  Services  drinking  water  action
     levels  and Federal drinking  water  standards.    In January  1983,  one
     water supplier stopped regular service from its water supply wells and
     drinking water  supply from some private wells  was  discontinued even
     though the highest levels"of VOC's were below  the Department of Health
     Services (DHS) Drinking Water Action Levels.    Currently, as a result
     of clean-up measures undertaken by the discharger, nine drinking water
     wells monitored in the plume area have nondetectable  concentrations at
     less  than. 0.5  ppb detection  limits  pnd  four  drinking  water wells
     contain  no more  than 1.0 ppb  of  Freon  and  0.4, ppb TCA.  One well
     contains 20  ppb  Freon  and 9.0  ppb TCA.  The  remaining  water supply
     wells are  not  accessible for monitoring by the  discharger.   None of
     the  defined  area water  supply  wells  which  are currently monitored
     contain more than 0.1 ppb 1.1-DCE.   Eight water: supply wells have been
     taken out of service and  destroyed since the  investigation began.

9.   The discharger has  installed  more  than 300 monitoring and extraction
     wells to aid  in plume characterization, source control,  and cleanup.
     At this time; the plume appears  to  be  present  in several aquifers and
     -is adequately defined vertically.  The  plume  measures more than three
     miles in length extending northwesterly from  the  discharger's property
     boundary past the intersection of Monterey Road and Capitol Expressway
     (Attachment 2)  and is more than 180 feet in  depth.   Laterally, the
     plume  is currently  under significant  hydraulic control.   However,
     chemicals continue to migrate  from shallow aquifers  to deep aquifers
     which increases the concentrations  of chemicals  in the  deeper
     aquifers.

10.  The  discharger  may  be required  to  perform 'additional  plume
     characterization if  monitoring  results  indicate that 'potential
     conduits may have  transmitted  chemicals  to  deeper aquifers.  The
     discharger has  identified several  wells  in  the defined  area which
     could be . and  have been  potential  commits.  These  wells  have been
     properly destroyed,   are   scheduled for  destruction,  or cannot  be
     located.
IBMSCR10/21/88                      -3-

-------
ORDER No. 88-157
     Plan  (NCP)  requirements  for  a remedial  investigation and feasibility
     study  (RI/FS).    This  comprehensive  plan  contains  a  proposed  final
     remediation  plan,  proposed remediation  levels,   a  remediation
     alternatives  evaluation,  water conservation plan,  contingency  plans
     for short  term  sub-basin management,  and  a public health evaluation.
     The  final  remediation plan  is conceptual  and  provides a  basis  for
     remedial design.

16.  Pursuant to  the  South Bay  Multi-Site Cooperative Agreement  and  the
     South  Bay  uround Water  contamination amercement. Agreement,  entered
     into on May 2, 1985, (as  subsequently amended), by the  Regional Board,
     EPA and DHS, the Regional Board has been acting as the  lead  regulatory
     agency.    DHS  and   EPA  have  reviewed  and  commented  on   the  draft
     comprehensive  plan  submitted  by  the discharger.  The  initial  draft
     comprehensive plan  and its  revisions have been  available  for public
     review from December 1, 1986.  During the  time that the IBM  site was a
     proposed NPL  site,  investigation  and cleanup was  regulated based on
     CERCLA and Health and Safety  Code requirements.    Since June 21, 1988,
     the IBM  site  has been proposed to become a RCRA  site  and be dropped
     from consideration' as a NPL site.   The Regional Board will continue to
     regulate  the  discharger's  remediation  and  enforce  under.  CERCLA as
     amended by SARA.

17.  The discharger evaluated six  alternative cleanup plans:  1)  monitoring
     only, 2) protection of beneficial  uses at  drinking water supply wells,
     3)  protection  of beneficial  uses  within  the  aquifer,  4)  aquifer
     protection with a safety factor (assuming  stable  groundwater levels 5)
     remediation  to  background  levels,  and  6)  aquifer  protection   with
     safety factor  (contingency plans  based  on. variable groundwater
     levels).   Based  on  the alternatives  evaluated,   the  discharger
     recommended alternative  6,   as a  final  remedial  action plan.   The
   .  objectives  of  the   plan  are:    1)  protect  public  health  and  the
     environment, 2) be technically feasible  and  3) be  cost-effective.  The
     discharger proposes  to continue  grouitduater remediation off  site to
     concentrations  below health-based  drinking water criteria.   The
     discharger's proposed plan,  as modified by this Order,  is adequate to
     comply with the  Specifications, Prohibitions, and Provisions  of  this
     Order.

18.  On July 21, 1988,  the  State  Board adopted Resolution  No. 88*88 which
     required that IBM  and  Fairchild  remediation plans  must  result in
     beneficial  use   of,  or  recharge  to  the   Santa   Teresa  Basin,  of   a
     significant amount  of extracted  groundwater.  If use  or recharge of
     significant amounts  is not  proposed  for  the per-'od  after January 31,
     1989,   the  discharger  must   fully  justify reasons  for  not using or
 _.  recharging the groundwater.   The  justification  must also  -'^aonstrate


IBMSCR10/21/88                      -5-

-------
ORDER No. 88-157
     why  continued pumping  is  necessary  from  Che  standpoints  of  public
     health,   protection  of  potential  and  present  beneficial  uses,
     maintaining high  quality  water,  and  providing  the  maximum benefit to
     the people of the State.

19.  The  discharger  has  evaluated  the  feasibility  of  reusing  the
     groundwater resulting from the remediation activities. The  discharger
     proposes  to  reuse   the  groundwater  on site  for    shallov  aquifer
     recharge,  irrigation,  and cooling tower witer makeup flow and will
     optimize  the reuse with a goal of reusing 100% of the  total flow from
     on and off site.   If an opportunity  for additional reuse occurs, the
     discharger will evaluate that potential reuse based on the  conditions
     set  forth under the California Water  Code  Section  13550.   The
     discharger proposes  to  treat  off site groundwater  by nozzles with no
     additional use  prior to discharge to  storm  drains  leading to Canoas
     Creek which flows into  Guadalupe River to  recharge shallow aquifers.
     Groundwater extraction and reuse may  need to  be modified  in  the future
     based on  management of the basin and on the  inherent  uncertainties of
     yearly rainfall amounts and based on  the performance  evaluation to be
     conducted every five  years  after this order  is adopted.   Use of the
     treated groundwater  for  irrigation and recharge via  injection wells
     shall be  regulated pursuant to another Regional Board order.  '.

     The Regional  Board  intends  to strongly encourage,  and require to the
     extent allowed  by  lav,  the  maximum  reuse  of extracted  groundwater
     feasible  either  by the discharger  or other public  or private water
     users.  Groundwater extracted from the Edenvale Gap  should receive the
     highest priority of all offsite extraction  for  reuse  consideration. .

20.  The discharger  has  based its  evaluation  of  remediation  alternatives
     and remediation  levels on  the  Hazard Index  concept. Hazard  Indices
     have been calculated  for both possible noncarcinogenic effects  (NCHI)
     and possible carcinogenic effects  (CHI).   A  NCHI  value less than 1.0
     indicates that all of the 'chemicals of interest found in  B  and  deeper
     drinking  water  aquifers  are  present  at  concentrations   equal  to or
     below their  relevant drinking water  criteria.  A CHI  value  of 1.0
     indicates  a   maximum possible  one  in a  million  cancer  risk  from
   - drinking  two liters of water  directly from the aquifer for 70  years.
     Department of Health Services  (DHS)  and  the  EPA  have   reviewed the
     discharger's  proposed use of Hazard Indices and found that the  indices
     appear to be  justified for  drinking water  based  on  available  data.
     These values may increase or decrease based on possible future  changes
     in action levels or  other safe  drinking  water  standards for  these
     pollutants.
IBMSCR10/21/88                      -6-

-------
ORDER No. 88-157


     From a  public health threat perspective,  the primary  exposure  route
     from  the  discharger's  contamination  is   through  ingestion  of
     contaminated water.  Based upon 1986 data, the maximum cancer risk due
     to potential consumption of untreated water from the A-aquifer zone is
     approximately 8 x 10"^ which a CHI of 80.0.   This calculation assumes
     a worst case scenario in which a person  weighing 70 kilograms drinks 2
     liters of water daily directly from the  A-aquifer zone in the IBM site
     over a  70  year period.   Similarly,  the  contamination associated with
     non-carcinogen adverse  health  effects  in the A-Aquifer  zone on-site
     significantly exceed relevant drinking water  criteria,  with a maximum
     NCHI of 71.3.   The A-aquifer zone does  not  currently supply drinking
     water  and IBM installed  institutional  controls  to prevent  future
     exposure  to  A-aquifer  zone  water.   Contamination  on-site migrating
     downward  to  the   lower" drinking  water  aquifer  warrants  A-aquifer
     remediation.

21.  On  October 28, 1968,  the  State Board  adopted Resolution  No.  68-16,
     "Statement of  Policy with  Respect to Maintaining  High Quality Water*
     in  California".  .This  policy calls  for  maintaining the existing high,
     quality of State  waters  unless  it  is  demonstrated that  any change
     would  be  consistent   with  the maximum public  benefit  and  not
     unreasonably affect beneficial  uses.  This is based on a  Legislative
     finding,  contained in  Section  13000,   California  Water Code,  which
     states  in. part that it is  State policy  that;  "waters of the  State
     shall  be   regulated  to  attain  the  highest   water  quality  which  is
     reasonable".    The  original  discharge of wastes  to the groundwater at
     this site was  in violation of  this policy, therefore, the  groundwater
     needs  to  be  restored   to  its  original  high quality  to  the  extent
     reasonable.    -Based  on  available  information,   as  found in  the
     discharger's technical  reports  "Draft Comprehensive  Plan"  dated June
     1987  and  revised October  1987  and   "Draft  Comprehensive  Plan
     Supplement" dated  April 1988  and revised July  1988, the change in
     water quality  does not unreasonably  affect  beneficial  uses and is
     consistent with the maximum  public benefit as defined in  State Board
     Resolution No. 68-16.   This  limited  degradation  would not exceed any
     established water  quality  policies;  the  remediation water quality
     levels proposed are well below current applicable health criteria; and
     the levels, do  restore   the quality of  the groundwater  to  the extent
     reasonable  given  technical  and  economic  constraints.    These
     constraints include the high additional  incremental costs  for removal
     of small amounts of additional pollutants  and the need  to minimize the
     removal of groundwater to achieve acceptable  cleanup  levels.

22.  The remediation level for the  B and  deeper aquifers is 0.25 NCHI and
     1.0 CHI as well as one  fourth  the noncarcinogen drinking water action
 =.   level or health criteria  for each non-carcinogen and  the^ne in one


IBMSCR10/21/88                       -7-

-------
ORDER No.  88-157
     million  risk concentration  for  each  carcinogen.    The  level for  the
     transmissive  areas of  the A  aquifer is the drinking water action level
     or health  criteria  for each  chemical.  These  remediation  levels  are  at
     or be-low drinking water health  criteria,  action levels,  and standards
     and  will  assure  preservation of  beneficial uses  by maximizing  the
     quality  of  groundwater  to   the  maximum  extent   feasible.  The  soil
     remediation goal  is 1  ppm for each pollutant; a goal is set due  to the
     technical  uncertainties associated with  remediation of  soil by means
     other  than excavation which  is no  longer  feasible  due  to prohibitive
     cost.  These  remediation levels may be attained witiii.n  t-en uo  twenty
     years.   This  goal vill be re-evaluated based on  chemical leachability
     test  results for the  so.il  and evaluation  of pilot  and  full  scale
     remediation efforts.

23.  Based  on historic water quality data  for  monitoring  wells upgradient
     of and near  Edenvale  Gap,  chemical concentrations  are not expected to
     significantly increase in water supply wells  in   the  undefined area.
     Remediation  levels  would be   similar  to  concentrations (approximately
     '30 ppb each TCA. and Freon), which  flowed  through Edenvale Gap and into
     the  undefined area  prior  to  plume interception during interim
     remediation.  Concentrations   in  the Edenvale  Gap  wells  will   not'be
     allowed  to increase above 30 ppb  each for  TCA and Freon  or 0.6 ppb
     1,1-DCE.

     In order to  assure effective verification  monitoring  of groundwater
     leaving  the   defined  area through  the Edenvale  Gap, a continuously
     pumping well  needs to  be  monitored.   This  well must be screened in at
     .least  the  B  and C aquifers.   The well must  be located,  and pumped at
     sufficient  volume,  to. assure a  capture   zone  representative   of the
     groundwater passing through  the Edenvale Gap.

24.  If new information  indicates remediation  levels cannot  be reasonably
     attained  or  can  be  reasonably surpassed,  the Regional  Board  will
     decide if  further final remediation actions beyond   those  completed
     shall  be implemented  at this site, based to a significant degree on
     the information developed pursuant to this  Order.  In accordance with
     the State  Board Order  No.  86-90 requirements,  the  Regional Board will
     base its decision on  an evaluation of .monitoring  data obtained after
     temporary  shutdown of  extraction wells prior to  permanent abandonment
     of extraction wells.    If  changes  in  health criteria,  administrative
     requirements, site conditions, or  remediation efficiency occur,  the
     discharger will submit an evaluation  of  the effects  of these  changes
     on remediation  levels  specified in Specification B.3, 4  and 6  and on
     Table 1 and 2 of  this Order.
IBMSCR10/21/88                      -8-

-------
ORDER No. 88-157
     The  Regional  Board recognizes chat  the discharger  has already
     performed extensive  investigative  and remedial work  onsite  and
     offsite; and  that  the  discharger is  being  ordered  hereby  to perform
     substantial additional  remedial  tasks.   It  is  in the public interest
     to have  the  discharger  undertake such remedial  actions  promptly  and
     without prolonged litigation or  the expenditure of public funds.   The
     Board  recognizes  that  an  important  element  in  encouraging  the
     discharger to  invest  substantial  resources  in  undertaking such
     remedial actions  is  to provide  the  discharger  with reasonable
     assurances that the rtcedirl ^ctic^.s cillad for in this Order will be
     the  final  remedial  actions  required  to be  undertaken  by  the
     discharger.    On the  other hand,  the  Board  also  recognizes -its
     responsibility  to  protect  water  quality,  public  health,  and  the
     environment and that  future developments  could indicate  that  some
     additional remedial  actions  may be  necessary.   The  Board  has
     considered and  balanced these important considerations, and  has
     determined that the remedial actions ordered  herein  represent  the
     Board's best,  current judgment of the remedial actions to be required
     of the  discharger.   The Board  will  not  require  the  discharger  to
     undertake  additional remedial  actions  with respect to  the matters
     previously described herein  unless:    (1) conditions  on  the  site,
     previously unknown  to the Board, are  discovered after the adoption of
     this Order, or (2)  new  information is received by the Board, in whole
     or in part after the date of this Order, and these  previously unknown
     conditions or this  new  information indicates that the remedial actions
     required in this Order  may not be protective of public health and the
     environment.    The  Board  will also  consider  technical practicality,
     cost effectiveness, State Board Resolution No.  68-16 and  the  other
     factors .evaluated by the. Board  in  issuing  this Order in determining
     whether such   additional remedial  actions   are  appropriate  and
     necessary.

25.  In accordance with  the  Health and Safety  Code Section 25356.1, Section
     121  of  the Comprehensive Environmental  Response,  Compensation,  and
     Liability Act  of 1980  (CERCLA)  this  final remedial action plan is
     equivalent to a  feasibility study,  satisfies  the requirements  of the
     California Water Code Section 13304 and is  protective of human health
     and the  environment, attains Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate
     Requirements   (ARARs),  utilizes  permanent   solutions  and alternative
     treatment  technologies  and resource  recovery  technologies to  the
     maximum  extent   possible   for  short  term   effectiveness,   is
     implementable,  is  cost  effective,  is  acceptable  based  on  State
     regulations,  policies,  and guidance,  and reduces  toxicity,  mobility,
     and volume of pollutants,  and addresses public  concerns.
IBMSCR10/21/88                     -9-

-------
ORDER No. 88-157


26.  The  Board  adopted a revised Water  Quality  Control Plan  for  the San
     Francisco Bay Basin (Basin Plan)  on December 16,  1986.  The Basin Plan
     contains water  quality objectives  and beneficial uses  for  South San
     Francisco Bay and contiguous surface and  groundwaters.

27.  Development  of  this final  remediation action  plan was based  on the
     Regional Board's  evaluation  of seven years  of  water and soil quality
     data.  Random samples have been collected and analyzed by  the Regional
     Board  to  confirm the  validity  of  data  generated  by the discharger.
     However,  the data  has not  yet  been validated  using  EPA validation
     guidance.  The quality of this  data has been taken   into consideration
     and has been used in a manner consistent  with the data's quality.
                             . »*"
28.  The existing and potential beneficial uses of the groundwater underlying
     and adjacent to the facility include:

     a.  Industrial process water supply
     b.  Industrial service water supply
     c.  Municipal and domestic water  supply
     d.  Agricultural water supply

29.  The  discharger  has caused  or  permitted, and  threatens  to  cause, or
     permit, waste to  be discharged or deposited where  it  is or probably
     will be discharged-to waters of the  State and creates or  threatens to
     create a condition of pollution or  nuisance.  Onsite and offsite  final
     containment and  remediation  measures  need  to be  implemented to
     alleviate the  threat to  the  environment posed by  the plume of
     pollutants.                                 .  .


30.  This  action is  an  order  to  enforce   the   laws  and  regulations
     administered by the Board.   This action  is categorically exempt  from
     the provisions of the CEQA pursuant  to Section 15321 of the Resources
     Agency Guidelines.

31.  The  Board  has notified the discharger and  interested  agencies  and
     persons of  its  intent under California  Water Code  Section  13304 to
     prescribe Site Cleanup Requirements for the discharge and  has provided
     them with the opportunity for  a  public hearing and an  opportunity to
     submit their written views and  recommendations.

32.  The  Board,   in a public meeting,   heard  and considered   all  comments
     pertaining to the discharge.
IBMSCR10/21/88                      -10-

-------
ORDER No. 88-157
IT  IS  HEREBY ORDERED, pursuant to  Section  13304  of the  California Water
Code, chat the  discharger shall cleanup and abate  Che effects  described  in
the above findings as follows:

A   PROHIBITIONS               .          •

     1.   The discharge of wastes or hazardous materials in a  manner which
          will  degrade  water quality  or  adversely affect  the  beneficial
          uses of the waters of the State is prohibited.

     2.   Further  significant  migration  of  chemicals  above  remediation
          levels, as  described  in Findings  22 and  23,  through  subsurface
          transport to waters of the State  is  prohibited.

     3.   Activities associated with the  subsurface  investigation and
          cleanup which  will  cause  significant  adverse migration  of
          chemicals are prohibited.

B.  SPECIFICATIONS                      .

     1.   The  storage,  handling,   treatment  or  disposal  of  soil  or
          groundwater containing chemicals  shall not create a nuisance  as
          defined in Section 13050(m)  of the California Water Code.

     2.   The discharger shall conduct monitoring  activities  as  needed  to
          define  the current local  hydrogeologic conditions, and  the
          lateral and vertical  extent of soil  and groundwaier  containing
          chemicals.   Should  monitoring  results   show  evidence   of  plume
          migration above remediation  levels  as described  in Findings  22
          and 23, additional plume characterization may be  required.

      3.  Final remediation levels for chemical concentrations in any  B  or
          deeper  aquifer  well  containing  chemicals  from  the  discharger's
          facility,  shall  be- equal  to  or  less  than its   Table   1
          concentration and equal to or less than  a NCHI of 0.25  and a CHI
          of 1.0.

          The  NCHI  is  calculated as shown using   denominator  values  as
          listed in Table 3.
                 n
                           (actual concentration of each chemical  in ppb)
                           (each chemical's  Table 3 concentration  in ppb)
IBMSCR10/21/88                      -11-

-------
ORDER No. 88-157
          The CHI is calculated as shown using denominator  values  as  listed
          in Table 4.
                 n
                           (actual concentration of each  chemical  in  ppb)
                           (each chemical's Table 4 concentration  in  ppb)
          Chemica1  concentrations  shall  no*" *°  ^oun'1  *">  equal  or  exceed
          Table  1 concentrations based  on the  moving annual  average .of
          analytical results as determined at  the end of each quarter.

          If  the moving  annual  average  in  any quarter  increases  by  50%
          relative  percent  difference  (RPD)   from  the  previous quarter,
          which will be considered a baseline  quarter, then  the  discharger
          shall  inform  the Regional  Board of  such  an  increase. After  the
          first   quarter   following  the  baseline  quarter,  the  second
          quarterly average is still  50% RPD above the  baseline  quarter and
          the  concentrations  are above  final remediation  levels,  then  a
          threatened violation is present and the discharger shall  inform
          the  Board of the. causes of  this  threatened violation.  If. the
          third  quarterly  average  is  an increase  of 50%  RPD  from  the
          baseline quartet  and  concentrations are above  final  remediation
          levels  then the discharger  shall be  considered  to be in violation
          of  this order  and  shall  inform the  Board of  how and when  the
          discharger will regain compliance.

          If quarterly average concentrations  increase  above 30  ppb  each of
          Freon-113 and TCA or 0.6 ppb  1,1-DCE,  in wells ORBC^2,  ORBC-3,
          35-BC,  36-BCD,  37-BC,  40-BC,  38-BC,  39-BC,  and  44-BC,  the
          discharger shall  inform  the Regional Board  of  how and when the
          discharger will regain compliance.

     4.   Final remediation levels for  each  chemical concentration  in the
          transmissive areas  of  the   A aquifer shall  be  equal  to or less
          than each chemical concentration as  listed in Table 2.

     5.   The discharger  shall-optimize,  with a goal  of  100%,  its  use of
          the groundwater extracted from its groundwater  cleanup activities
          to aid  the cleanup and reduce the effect of water level declines.

     6.   The discharger  shall remediate  soil  to  a  goal  of  1 ppm  for each
          chemical.  This goal, may be modified by the Regional Board if the
          discharger  demonstrates  with   site  specific  data  that  higher
          levels  of chemicals in the soil  will not  threaten  the quality of
          vaters  of the State.                     	         ~*"~
IBMSCR10/21/88                      -12-

-------
ORDER No.  88-157
      7.   .Compliance  poincs  shall  be established  at  all monitoring wells
          which  at any given time  are outside the  0.25  NCHI and 1.0  CHI
          plume  boundary.

    .  8.   The  discharger  shall maintain extraction wells  ORBC-2  and  ORBC-3
          in  operable condition  until the remediation levels  are  attained
          throughout  the  entire plume area.

      y.    Ine discharger shall  implement the  final  Remedial Action  Plan
          described in Finding 17,  as modified by this Order.

    10.   Interpretation  of  all  the  above  specifications shall  recognize
          the  inherent  constraints  placed on  the  discharger's  ability  to
          control  groundwater levels, and potential migration of chemicals
          of  concern due  to pumping by  other  groundwater  users and  the
          apparent hydrologic  imbalance  in  the  Santa Teresa  Groundwater
          Basin.  However,  the  discharger shall  c'omply  with  this  Order  to
          maximum  extent  feasible.

C.,  PROVISIONS

      1.   The  discharger  shall  submit  to  the Board  acceptable  monitoring
          program  reports containing results of work performed according to
          a program prescribed by the Board's Executive Officer.

      2.   The  discharger shall  comply with  this Order  immediately  upon
          adoption with the  exception that the discharger shall comply  with
          Prohibitions A.I., A.2., and A.3. and  Specifications B.I., B.2..
          B.3.,  B.A,  B.5.,  B.6.,  B.7.,  B.8.  and B.9.  above,  in accordance
          with the following tasks and compliance time schedules:

          a.   COMPLETION DATE:  December 15.  1988

               TASK 1 - EDENVALE GAP WELL MONITORING
               Submit a  technical  report acceptable  Co the  Executive
               Officer  demonstrating effective  monitoring of groundwater
               passing through the  Edenvale Gap.   This report  shall  at a
               minimum specify for an existing or proposed well,  the well's
               location,  screened interval, pumping rate,  anticipated
               capture zone  and  proposed monitoring  schedule.   If a  new
               well(s)  is proposed,   an installation  and monitoring  time
               schedule  shall  be included.   The  Executive  Officer  shall
               amend  the  Self-Monitoring Program attached to  this Order to
               indicate when monitoring shall- begin and its frequency.
IBMSCR10/21/88                      -13-

-------
 ORDER No.  88-157
           b.   COMPLETION DATE:  December 15, -1988

               TASK 2 - GROUNDtfATER USE PLANS
               Submit  a technical report  acceptable  to the  Executive
               Officer which contains  a  description of  the  groundwater use
               plans  associated  with the  final  remediation  plan.    The
               report  shall  include  documentation  of  efforts  to  secure
               users for the water, reasons why potential users would not
               accept the water,  and justification for why the  pumped water
               cannot be used for beneficial uses or returned  to the Basin.
               The  technical report  shall demonstrate how  groundwater
               extracted from the  Edenvale  Gap  will be  reused,  including
               specific uses and time  schedules for implementation.

           c.   COMPLETION DATE:   July  17, 1989

               TASK 3 - IN SITU VAPOR EXTRACTION PILOT  STUDY  EFFECTIVENESS
                        AND FULL SCALE PROPOSAL
               Submit  a technical report  acceptable  to the Executive
               Officer which contains  an evaluation of the effectiveness  of
               in situ.vapor extraction pilot studies  conducted  in  source
               areas  on  site.    This  evaluation shall  address  the
               feasibility of achieving  the soil remediation goals as set
               forth in Specification  6 of this Order.

           d.   COMPLETION DATE:  -July  17. 1989

               TASK 4 - "A" AQUIFER EXTRACTION WELL PILOT STUDY RESULTS AND
                        PROPOSED  BOUNDARY AND OFFSITE LOCATIONS
               Submit  a technical report  acceptable  to the Executive
               Officer which contains a description  and  results of the  A
               aquifer extraction well pilot  study  and  a  remedial  design
               proposal for full  scale A aquifer extraction well locations.
               The  report  shall  contain  an  evaluation  of  capture  zone
               confirmation for  each  extraction veil  and a proposal  for
               installation of extraction,  piezometric,  and monitoring
               wells.   This report  shall also include  a  Sample Plan which
               proposes  well  location,  construction,  development and
               monitoring schedule.
          e.   COMPLETION DATE:   August  21, 1989

               TASK 5 - ON SITE  GROUNDWATER UTILIZATION
               Submi,  a technical  report  acceptable  to  the Executive
               Officer  which  contains  an evaluation  of  the  irrigation,
IBMSCR10/21/88                      -14-

-------
 ORDER No.  88-157
           b.    COMPLETION DATE: December  15. 1988

                TASK 2  - GROUNDtfATER USE PLANS
                Submit a  technical report  acceptable  to  the  Executive
                Officer which contains a description  of  the  groundwater use
                plans  associated with  the  final  remediation  plan.   The
                report  shall include  documentation  of  efforts  to  secure
                users-  for  the water,  reasons why potential users would not
                accept the water, and justification for why the pumped water
                cannot be used for beneficial uses or returned to the Basin.
                The  technical  report shall demonstrate how  groundwater
                extracted  from  the  Edenvale  Gap will be  reused,  including
                specific uses and time schedules for implementation.

           c.    COMPLETION DATE:  July 17, 1989

                TASK 3  - IN  SITU VAPOR EXTRACTION PILOT STUDY EFFECTIVENESS
                        AND FULL SCALE PROPOSAL
                Submit a  technical report  acceptable  to  the  Executive
                Officer which contains an  evaluation of the effectiveness  of
              .  in situ vapor extraction pilot  studies  conducted  in source
                areas   on  site.    This  evaluation  shall  address the
                feasibility of  achieving the soil remediation goals as  se.t
                forth in Specification 6 of this Order.

           d.    COMPLETION DATE:  July 17, 1989

                TASK 4 • "A" AQUIFER EXTRACTION WELL PILOT STUDY RESULTS AND
                        PROPOSED  BOUNDARY AND OFFSITE LOCATIONS
                Submit  a  technical report  acceptable  to  the  Executive
                Officer which contains a  description  and results of  the  A
                aquifer extraction well pilot  study  and  a  remedial design
                proposal for full scale A  aquifer extraction well locations.
                The  report  shall  contain an  evaluation  of capture  zone
                confirmation for  each extraction veil  and a proposal  for
                installation of extraction,  piezometric,  and monitoring
               wells.   This report shall also  include  a Sample  Plan which
               proposes  well  location,  construction, development  and
               monitoring schedule.
          e.   COMPLETION DATE:   August  21,  1989

               TASK 5 - ON SITE  GROUNDWATER  UTILIZATION
               Submi.  a technical report  acceptable  to  the Executive
               Officer  which  contains  an  evaluation  of  the  irrigation,
IBMSCR10/21/88                      -14-

-------
 ORDER No.  88-157
               cooling cower, and lake  water use paccerns and proposed use
               of  extracted  groundvater,  including  a projected  range  of
               volume,   location,  application,   and  seasonal  rate  of
               groundwater usage.                      .     •

           f.   COMPLETION DATE:'  August 21. 1989                    .

               TASK 6 - CRITERIA  ^OR DECISION ANALYSIS OF FINAL  PLAN
                        IMPLEMENTATION AND CONTINGENCY PROPOSAL
               Submit  a technical  report, acceptable  to  Che  executive
               Officer  which contains  criteria used to  determine  which
               plan, either the Remedial  Action Plan  (RAP), Contingency 2,
               or  Contingency  1,   shall be  initially  implemented  as
               described  in'  the   discharger's    "Draft   Supplement
               Comprehensive   Plan".   .These  criteria shall  be  based  on
               saturated thickness, rate  of decline or rate of  recovery of
               groundwater levels basin hydrologic balance  within a range
               of  storage or  overdraft values,  and the  trend in  stability
               of water levels at or near  the site.

          ;.    COMPLETION DATE:   April 20, 1990

               TASK 7  -  "A"  AQUIFER BOUNDARY'AND  OFF  SITE  EXTRACTION WELL
                         INSTALLATION ,
               Submit  a technical  report acceptable  to  the  Executive
               Officer which  contains  a  description  of construction  and
               implementation of  the A aquifer boundary and off  site  wells.

          h.   COMPLETION DATE:   February  19,  1992

               TASK 8 - FINAL PLAN CONSTRUCTION COMPLETION
               Submit  a technical  report acceptable  to the  Executive
               Officer which  describes  the construction  and implementation
               of the final remedial action plan.

          i.   COMPLETION DATE:   October 19, 1993

               TASK  9  - FIVE YEAR  STATUS  REPORT  AND   EFFECTIVENESS
                           EVALUATION

               Submit  a technical  report acceptable  to the  Executive
               Officer   contair '.ng   the  results   of  any  additional
               investigation; an  evaluation of the  effectiveness of
               installed final  •remedial  measures  and  remediation  costs;
               additional recommended  measures necessary to  achieve final
               cleanup objectives;  a compf'ison of previous expgr^ed costs
IBMSCR10/21/88                      -15-

-------
 ORDER No.  88-157
               with  Che  costs incurred and  projected  costs  necessary  to
               achieve remediation levels and goals;  and the  tasks and time
               schedule  necessary to  implement  any  additional  final
               remedial measures.   The evaluation shall include, but need
               not be limited to,  an estimation of the flow capture zone of
               the  extraction, wells,  establishment  of the  cones  of
               depression by  field measurements,   and presentation  of
               chemical monitoring data.   This report  shall also describe
               the use of  extracted groumJwater and  evaluate and document
               Cut-  rt.uuvix  cu.d/ui  cleanup  of polluted  soils, if  such
               removal  and/or  cleanup is an  element  of  the  remedial
               measures.   In   addition  to   regular  groundwater   monitoring
               data,  on  site  soil  samples  shall  also be  collected,
               analyzed,  and--leachability  tests performed  to determine  the
               effectiveness   of  groundwater and  soil  air  extraction  on
               saturated and  unsaturated soil located on the site.

         j.    COMPLETION  DATE:    Two  months after  request  by  Executive
                                   Officer

               TASK 10-  "8" AND DEEPER  AQUIFER EXTRACTION WELL INSTALLATION
                        PROPOSAL
               Submit  a  technical report  acceptable to the  Executive
               Officer which  contains proposed extraction well locations in
               order to  comply with Prohibition  A.I.,  A.2.,  and A.3.  and
               Specifications B.3.

          k.   COMPLETION DATE:  one month after the end of  each study

               TASK 11 -  ADDITIONAL PILOT STUDIES
               Submit  a  technical report  acceptable to the  Executive
               Officer which  contains a description of pilot study results,
               an  effectiveness  evaluation  of  the  pilot  study,   a
               description of the methodology and basis of the  pilot  study
               approach and  all other  supporting  information,  in addition
               to field  notes  and laboratory  originated  data summary
              .sheets.

          1.   COMPLETION  DATE:    two  months  after  request made  by  the
                                   Executive  Officer

               TASK 12 -  EVALUATION OF  NEV  HEALTH CRITERIA
               Submit  a  technical report  acceptable to  the  Executive
               Officer which  contains  an evaluation  of  how  the  final plan
               and cleanup levels  would be  affected,  if  the concentrations,
               as listed  in Specification  B.3.,  Tables 3 and fc^^pd used to
IBMSCR10/21/88                      -16-

-------
 ORDER No. 88-157
               calculate  Hazard  Index  numbers,  change  as  a  result  of
               changes  in  source  document  conclusions  or  promulgation of
               drinking water standards or action levels.

          m.   COMPLETION  DATE:    four  months   prior   to  proposed
                               "  implementation of  extraction curtailment

               TASK 13 - WELL ABANDONMENT CRITERIA AND PROPOSAL
               Submit  a technical  report acceptable  to  the  Executive
               crriv-ei which contains a proposal for abandoning groundwater
               extraction  wells  and the  criteria   used  to  justify  well
               abandonment.   The   proposal  shall   include  temporary
               curtailment  of  extraction  well operation  for an  extended
               period of time co study the effects  on  pollutant  migration
               prior to well abandonment.   This  report  should identify  the
               method,  specific  monitoring wells,  and the  basis for  the
               time frame to be used to determine that final cleanup  levels
               have been reached  and that the potenti?! for increases above
               remediation- levels   in  concentrations   is  minimal.    This
               report shall  include supporting data for and an evaluation
               of water quality  in areas believed to be remediated.

          n.   COMPLETION  DATE:   30  days  after Regional   Board  approves
                                  curtailment.
               TASK 14 - CURTAILMENT IMPLEMENTATION
               Submit  a technical  report acceptable to  the Executive
               Officer  documenting completion of  the necessary  tasks
               identified in the  technical report submitted for Task 13.

          o.   COMPLETION  DATE:  60  days after  concentration  increase  is
                                  confirmed as provided in Specification 3.

               TASK 15  -  CONCENTRATION  INCREASE  EVALUATION  AND  RESPONSE
                           PROPOSAL
               Submit  a technical  report acceptable to  the Executive
               Officer which contains an  evaluation of the  occurrence of
               concentration increases  in extraction and  monitoring wells
               as  described in  Specification B.3.   In  the  event  of
               noncompliance based  on  Specification"  B.3.,  the  technical
               report shall  contain an evaluation of  the  costs,  benefits,
               and  drawbacks of  modifying  active   hydraulic  cleanup  and
               containment  measures  in  comparison  with  a continued
               monitoring  alternative.    This  technical report  shall also
               include  a  proposal   for  a  response  tr  meet  this  Order's
               requirements.
IBMSCR10/21/88                      -17-

-------
 ORDER No.  88-157
           p.    COMPLETION DATE:  30 days  after the Board determines whether
                                 additional  active measures are appropriate.

                TASK  16  - RESPONSE IMPLEMENTATION
                Suboit  a  technical report  acceptable  to  the Executive
                Officer  which  documents the  implementation  of the  proposal
                in  Task  15  which  will  be   implemented  should  pollutant
                concentrations  increase in extraction  and  monitoring wells
                as provided in Specifications B."J  -r>d B.7.

          q.     COMPLETION DATE:  one  month after  release confirmation
                                  notification.

                TASK  17  - PROPOSAL FOR  REMEDIATION OF NEW RELEASES
                Submit a  technical report  acceptable  to  the- Executive
                Officer  which  contains a  proposal  for remediation  of new
                releases ohsite, and an implementation time schedule. This
                report  shall  evaluate   the removal  and/or  cleanup  of soil
                containing chemicals;  evaluate alternative hydraulic  control
                systems  to contain  and to remediate  groundwater containing
                chemicals; shall  be consistent  with the  final remediation
                plan  and with the National Contingency  Plan.

           r.    COMPLETION DATE:    two months after  request  by  Executive
                                   Officer.

                TASK  18  - EVALUATION OF NEW TECHNICAL INFORMATION
                Submit a  technical report  acceptable to the Executive
                Officer  which  contains  an evaluation  of  new technical and
                economic information which indicate that remediation levels
                in some  plume  areas may be  considered for  revision.  Such
                technical reports shall not be required unless the Executive
                Officer or Board determines that  such  new  information
                indicates a reasonable  possibility that  the Order nay need
                to be changed under the criteria  described  in Finding 24.

          The  submittal of  technical  reports evaluating  additional  final
          remedial   measures  will include a  projection  of the cost,
          effectiveness, benefits, and impact  on public  health,   welfare,
          and  environment of  each alternative measure.  If  any additional
          remedial investigations  or  feasibility studies  are  found to  be
          necessary,  they shall be consistent with the guidance provided  by
          Subpart F  of  the National Oil  and Hazardous Substances  Pollution
          Contingency Plan  (40 CFR Part  300),   Section  25356.1 vc)  of the
          California Health and Safety Code, CERCLA  guidance docunents, the
          State Board's Resolution No. 68-16, and this Order.   "*"•""
IBMSCR10/21/88                      -18-

-------
 ORDER No.  88-157
      A.    If^_the__dis.charger  is  delay_ed:,__ interrupted  or prevented  from
           complying  with this Order or  meeting  one or  more of  the  time
           schedules  in this Order, the  discharger shall promptly notify the
           Executive  Officer.  In. the event of such delays  or noncompliance,
           the Regional  Board  will consider modification  of the  time
           schedules  established in this Order.

      5.    Monthly  technical  status  letter reports  on  compliance  with the
           Prohibitions,  Specifications, and  Provisions  of tnis Order shall
           be  submitted by the fifteenth of each month to  the Regioaal Board
           commencing December 15,  1988  and covering  the previous month.
           On  a monthly basis thereafter, or  as  required by the Executive
           Officer,  these  reports  shall  consist  of  a  report  that,  (1)
           summarizes work completed since submittal  of  the previous report,
           and work  projected  to be  completed by  the  time  of  the  next
           report,  (2)  identifies  any obstacles of which the discharger  is
           aware  that may  threaten  compliance with  the  schedule  of thi"
           Order and what  actions "are  being taken' to  overcome  these
           obstacles, and (3)  includes,  in the  event of non-compliance with
           any  Specification  or  Provision of   this  Order,   written
           notification which  clarifies  the  reasons  for non-compliance and
           which  proposes  specific  measures   and  a  schedule  to achieve
           compliance.    This  written  notification  shall identify work not
           completed  that was  projected for  completion,  and shall  identify
           the  impact of non-compliance  on  achieving  compliance  with' the
           remaining  requirements of this Order.

      6.    On  a quarterly basis, or as  required  by  the  Executive  Officer,
           monitoring  reports  shall  include,  but need  not be Halted to,
           updated water table and piezometric surface maps for all affected
           water bearing  zones,  and  appropriately scaled and  detailed base
           maps showing the location of all monitoring wells and extraction
           wells, and identifying"adjacent facilities  and structures. The
           self-monitoring plan for this Order may be changed,  as needed,  by
           the Executive  Officer.    Cross-sectional   geological  maps
           describing  the hydrogeological setting   of  the  site  shall   be
           provided in  the  first'quarterly status report for  each  calendar
           year that  this Order is  in  effect.   If  five  or  more new soil
           borings or wells are completed during any  quarter,  updated  cross-
           sectional  geological  maps shall  be provided  in  the  quarterly
           report for that quarter.

     7.   All hydrogeological plans, specifications, reports, and documents
           shall be  signed by or stamped with the  seal  of a  registered
           geologist, engineering geologist or professional engine**?
IBMSCR10/21/88                      -19-

-------
                                 TABLE 3

    CONCENTRATIONS USED AS DENOMINATORS  TO CALCULATE HAZARD INDICES
                             NONCARCINOGENIC EFFECTS
Chemical

Chloroform
r'.ithyl ;r.; :,w.:3P'.i2 (MC)
l,l-D1chioroethane (1.1-DCA)
1,1,1-TM chl oroe thane
  (1,1,1-TCA)
l.l-D1chloroethylene (1.1-DCE)
1,2-01chloroethylene (1,2-DCE)
Trlchloroethylene (TCE)
Perchloroethylene (PCS)
Freon 11               »
Freon 12
Freon 113
Toluene
Xylene

N-Kethyl-2-P^rroHdone
Isopropanol
Acetone
Ethyl An\yl Ketone
Shell Sol 140
Concentration
    fpobl

        90
       420
        20
       200

         6
        16
        52
       136
     3,400
       750
    18,000
       100
       440

       700
       450
       700
       123
     1,000
Source of Estimate

201 Of EPA RfD*
20% Of EPA RfD  „
OHS Action Level2
DHS Action Level

DHS Action Level
DHS Action Level
20% Of EPA DWEL*
20% Of EPA DWEL
DHS Action Level
20% of EPA RfD
DHS Action Level
OHS Action Level
EPA Lifetime Health
  Advisory4
DHS Site Criteria5
DHS Site Criteria
20% of EPA RfD
DHS Site Criteria
DHS Site Criteria
   ^Environmental Protect loo Agencjr.  J987&.  SfD denotes reference
    dose. •>,  •
   'Department of .Health Services.  1987a.
   ^Environmental Protection Agency.  1985c.
   ^Environmental Protection Agency.  19855.
   Department of Health Services.  1987b.

-------
                               TABLE 2                    '

            TARGET REMEDIATION GOALS FOR THE A-AQUIFER ZONE
      Chemical
Methylene Chloride
Chloroform
1,1-Dlchloroethane
1,1,1-Trlchloroethane
1,1-01chloroethylene
l,2-D1ch1oroethylene
Trlchloroethylene
Perchloroethylene
Freon 11
Freon 12
Freon 113
N-Methyl-2-PyrrolIdone
Isopropanol
Acetone
Ethyl Anyl Ketone
Shell Sol 140
Xylene

Toluene
Benzene
Concentration
    feob)

       40
       6.0
       20
      200
        6
       16
        5
        4
    3,400
      750
   18,000
      700
      450
      700
      123
    1.000
      440

      100
        0.7
     Source of Goal
OHS Action Level1
OHS Applied Action Level
DHS Action Level
DHS Action Level
OHS Action Level
OHS Action Level
OHS Action Level
OHS Action Level
DHS Action Level
2W of EPA RfO3
OHS Action Level
DHS Site Criteria4
OHS Site Criteria
20% of EPA RfO
DHS Site Criteria
DHS Site Criteria
EPA Lifetime Health
  Advisory5
DHS Action Level
OHS Action Level  .
   •[California Department of Health Services 1987a.
   JCallfornla Department of Health Services 1986c.
   'Environmental Protection Agency 19B7&.  RfD denotes Reference Oose.
   ^California Department of Health Services lS87b.
   ^Environmental Protection Agency 1985b.

-------
                            TABLE J_.
      TARGET REMEDIATION GOALS FOR THE B- AND DEEPER AQUIFER ZONES
      Chemical
Freon 113
1,1,1-Trlchloroethane
1,1-Dlchloroethylene
I,l-D1ch1oroethane
Freon 11
Trlchloroethylene
Chloroform
Methylene Chloride
Concentration
    fpptO
   4500
     50
      1.5
      5
    850
      3.1
      6.0
      4.8
     Source of Goal
0.25 x OKS Action Level
0.25 » IN* Action level
0.25 x OHS Action Level
0.25 x DHS Action Level
0.25 x DHS Action Level
10-6 Rifk Level2
10-6 R1sk Levei
10-* Risk Level
   ^Department of Health Services 1987a.
   ^Environmental Protection Agency 1987a,

-------
 ORDER No.  88-157
      8.    All  samples  shall be  analyzed  by  laboratories  certified  to
           perfore analysis on Hazardous  Materials  or laboratories using
           approved EPA methods  or an equivalent  method acceptable to the
           Executive  Officer.  The  discharger shall request  laboratories to
           follow  EPA  guidance   "Documentation  Requirements for  Data
           Validation of Non-CLP Laboratory Data for Organic  and  Inorganic
           Analyses'  dated May 1988   for  preparation  of data validation
           packages  when  required  by   the  Executive  Officer.    All
           laboratories  shall maintain  quality  assurance/quality  control
           records for Board review.

      9.    The  discharger shall maintain  in good working order, and operate,
           as   efficiently  as possible,   any facility  or  control  system
           installed  to achieve compliance  with  the requirements  of  this
           Order.

     10.    Copies  of  all correspondence,  reports,  and  documents pertaining
           to   compliance  with the  Prohibitions,   Specifications,  and
           Provisions  of this Order,  shall be provided  to  the  following
           agencies:

           a.   Santa  Clara Valley Vater  District
           b.   Santa  Clara County Health Department
           c.   City of San Jose
„.     r.    d.   State  Department of Health Services/TSCD
           e.   State  Vater Resources  Control Board
           f.   U.  S.  Environmental Protection Agency, Region IX

           Additional  copies of  correspondence, reports  and documents
           pertaining to  annual reporting  of   compliance  with  the
           Prohibitions, Specifications,  and Provisions  of this Order shall
           be  provided  for public use   when  requested  by  the  Executive
           Officer.
  i
     11.    The  discharger shall  permit  the  Board  or its authorized
      -     representative,  in accordance with  Section 13267(c) of the
           California Vater Code:
           a.   Entry  upon premises in which any pollution sources exist,  or
               •ay potentially exist, or in which any required records are
               kept, which are relevant  to this Order.

           b.   Access  to  copy any records  required to be  kept  under the
               terms  and conditions of this Order.

 - -.       c.   Inspection of any monitoring, equipment  or wchodology


IBMSCR10/21/88                      -20-

-------
 ORDER No.  88-157
                implemented in response to this Order.

           d.    Sampling of any  groundwater or soil which is accessible, or
                may  become accessible,  as part  of  any  investigation or
                remedial action program undertaken by  the  discharger.

     12.    The   discharger  shall  file  a  report  on  any  changes  in  site
           occupancy and ownership associated with the facility described in
           this  Order.

     13.    If any hazardous substance  is  discharged in or on any waters of
           the  state,  or  discharged and deposited where it is, or  probably
           will  be  discharged  in or  on  any waters  of  the  state,  the
           discharger  shall  .Lwne'diately report such  discharge  to  this
           Regional Board, at (415) 464-1255 on weekdays during office hours
           from  8  a.m.  to 5 p.m., and to the Office  of Emergency Services at
           (800) 852-7550  during non-office hours.   A written  report shall
           be be filed with the Regional  within  five* (5) working  days and
           shall contain  information relative  to:  the nature  of waste or
           pollutant,  quantity  involved,  duration of incident,  cause of
           spill,  Spill Prevention and Containment Plan (SPCC)  in effect, if
           any,  estimated size  of  affected area,  nature   of effects,
           corrective  measures  that  have  been  taken or  planned,  and  a
           schedule of  these activities, and persons notified.

     14.    The Board will  review this  Order periodically  and may revise the
           requirements when necessary under the criteria in Finding 24.

     15.    Regional Board Order Nos. 84-90 and 88-45 are hereby rescinded.
                                                                       . '  i
I,  Steven  R.   Ritchie,  Executive  Officer,   do  hereby  certify that the
foregoing  is  a full,  true and  correct  copy  of an Order  adopted  by the
California Regional Water Quality Control Board, Sar^Francisco Bay Region,
on October 19,  1988.
Attachments:
      Steven R.  Ritchie
      Executive  Officer
     TABLE 1 • Target Remediation Goals for the B- and Deeper Aquifer Zones
     TABLE 2 - Target Remediation Goals for the A-Aquifer Zone
     TABLE 3 • Concentrations Used as Denominators to Calculate
                    Hazard Indices Noncarcinogenic Effects
     TABLE 4 - Concentrations Used as Denominators to Calculate
                    Hazard Indices Possible Carcinogenic Effects
     SITE MAP                                                    .—-
IBMSCR10/21/88
-21-

-------
                                      TABLE **
             CONCENTRATIONS  USED AS DENOMINATORS TO CALCULATE HAZARD INDICES
                                  POSSIBLE CARCINOGENIC EFFECTS
                       Chemical   •

                       Methylene
                        chloride

                       Chloroform

                       Trlchloroethylene
                             ..«»•
                       Perchloroethylene2
                                              OR1
                                             (DDbl


                                             .4.6
                                              6.0

                                              3.1

                                              0.67
I
•'• '/•••
1 -V '
                            h
' vv*DR /Is the concentration of a chemical  1n drinking water that 1s
   ipjredlcted to Increase cancer risk by one,case out of. one million,
     1'-'•"••'	Dnsum1ngr2 liters of water per^day for 70-years, U.S.
                  Risk Information System, April,'»1987.  These numbers
               oh unit risk factors calculated by the^EPA Carcinogen •.
,'yy; Assessment Group.  They are theoretical upper bound r1fk»*ji ,   \
                                                                      included
                                                     *l/^  !
                                                       »<*•-         •» J
   u.....

-------
                                   ytn t«40i
to™   4«F-fcy  ion
SITE M«VP

-------
        PART 4






RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY
           8

-------
      APPENDIX C
RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY

-------
.11 Of
               AMD
                      AGCNCV
                                                           Gto*Gt
EPARTMENT OF HEALTH  SERVICES
3X1'  'BSTANCES CONTROL DIVISION
S1 L   -LEY WAY. ANNEX 7
RKE..../.CA 94704
                                       August 17,  1988
      Steve Richie
      Regional Hater  Quality Control Board
      1111 Jackson Street,  Rm 6040
      Oakland, CA  94607

      Dear Mr. Richie:

      Tentative Orders  for site clean-tip and BTDES Permit for
      Tpf-oi-ryi t j on* 1 Business Macnines (IBM) • San Jose, Santa Clara
      County.  File Mo.£ 2189.8031 (BAA). MPDES Permit Mo.: CA OO27961.

      On reviev of the  above referenced tentative Orders, NPDES permit,
      and documentation received in support thereof, the California
      Department  of Health Services, Toxic Substances Control Division
      finds the Orders  and NPDES permit, substantially meets the
      applicable  requirements of the California Health and Safety Code.
      Therefore,  the  Department hereby supports the tentative Orders
      and NPDES permit  becoming final.

                                       Sincerely,
                                       Bovard K. Batayama
                                       Chief, Site Mitigation Unit
                                       Region II
                                       Toxic Substances Control Division
      HH:DLC:sj

-------
                                                 8/15/88


                        HAZARD IIDKI


Why is the Hazard Index used as a measure  in determining
fundamental water quality?  The answer  is  because it glTes
os an immediate view as to how safe the water  is to drink.
Since it is defined as the ratio of concentration of
chemicals existing in the water to the  concentration which
has been determined to be safe, it becomes a. very useful
tool in setting state policy.

It is useful to divide health effects of the chemicals which
are found in water into at least two categories:
noncarcinogenic effects and possible carcinogenic effects.
The corresponding hazard indices may be referred to as the
hazard index for noncarcinogenic effects (MCHI) and the
index for possible carcinogenic effects (CHI).

The NCR! la calculated as the sum of ratios of measured
water quality to relevant.drinking water criteria:

HCHI - C^/SL, + Cj/8^ *-"+cn/SL^

where C is the concentration of chemical actually  found  in
the water, and SL is the safe level' of that chemical  based
on DBS action levels or other appropriate health  based
criteria for noncarcinogenic effects.  Thus, if an  MCHI  is
leas than 1, the individual chemical concentrations are
lower (better) than their respective drinking water
criteria.

is CHI is calculated as the mom of the ratioa of  concen-
trations which exist in the water to the concentration which
theoretically could cause-a one-in-a-million incremental
cancer risk if two liters of the water were (for e.g.)
consumed every day for 70 years:

CHI - C //SL, * C/SL +...+C /SV,
       I     f    «k   «t      *V   •»
where C is as defined above but SL has  the meaning in this
equation of being the level which  would create the one in a
million incremental lifetime risk.   For many  riak
calculations this is considered a  deminimnm risk and is
therefore appropriate to  be considered  as the safe level.

-------
    '.ioral Bus>n«ss Machines Corporation
 <<»OB>-256-4467
September 9,  1988
          5600 Con leRoad
          San JOM. California 95193
HAND
I V E R" E D
Steven Ritchie,  Executive  Officer
Regional Water Quality  Control Board,
     San Francisco  Bay  Region
1111 Jackson Street, Room  6000
Oakland, CA   94607
                 5EP 10

            QUALITY COKmOL BOARD
Subject:   IBM  Comments  on RWQCB  Tentative Orders
Dear fir. Ritchie!

Attached please  find  IBM's  comments to your tentative orders
for both the  Site  Cleanup Requirements and NPDES Waste
Discharge Requirements  for  your  review and consideration.
Many of these have already  been  discussed with you or your
staff.     -                                             .

I look forward to  working with you and your staff to
incorporate these  comments  into  your orders.
Very truly  yours,
H. Ray Kerby
Director, Environmental  Programs
270-122
Attachment



cc:  w/attachment

     Belinda  Allen - RWQCB (3 copies)

-------
                                                      9 September  1988
                   CONNECTS ON RWQCB TENTATIVE ORDERS
I.  SITE CLEANUP REQUIREMENTS TENTATIVE ORDER

REOPENER PROVISIONS

The proposed Order contains several  provisions that relate to the
possibility of future changes 1n the remedial action plan which IBM
would be ordered to carry out.  A ninter  of these provisions refer to
possible changes In the basic remedial goals established In the Order
(Findings 18 and 21); several relate to possible »od1f1cations of the
groundwater extraction tnd reuse program  (Findings 17  and 21); others
refer to additional site investigations,  changes 1n the monitoring
program, or reports to be submitted  by IBM on possible changed remedial
plans (Findings 9, Specification 2,  and Provisions 2.r, 2.v and 6); and
one relates to a five-year status report  tnd effectiveness evaluation
(Provision 2.q).  In addition to these specific Items, Provision  14 1s
a general section, saying that *tht Board will  nvicw this order
   •                         •                        _
periodically tnd ny rtvlse the requirements when necessary."

IBM recognizes that the Board has responsibilities to protect
beneficial uses of water and the public health and that a cleanup order
should Include reasonable reopener provisions so that the BoanT,  and
IBM, can respond appropriately to new developments.  However, IBM
ISG148B                            1                            880015

-------
                                                      9 September 1968

believes  1t 1s also Important for the Board  to  recognize that IBM, and
other companies which will be presented with proposed final cleanup and
abatement orders, need reasonable certainty  regarding Order
requirements as they commit to the substantial  efforts and expenditures
that will be Involved 1n large remedial programs.

IBM has already performed extensive Investigative  and  remedial work
onslte and offslte.  The proposed Order would direct IBM to perform
•any additional remedial tasks.  It Is 1n the public Interest to have
private parties, such as IBM, undertake these actions  promptly tnd
without prolonged litigation or the expenditures of public funds.
Therefore, 1n situations such as this, where the site  has been
extensively studied tnd we are dealing with t final cleanup Order
rather than an Interim step, we believe tn  Important element in
encouraging companies to undertake the remedial actions 1s to provide
them with reasonable assurances that the actions called for 1n the
Order will be the final remedial actions required of the company.

Admittedly. It Is difficult to balance this need for. certainty with the
need for some "reopeners" to permit adjustments reflecting future
developments.  In the federal Superfund process, this balance Is
usually achieved through a 'Consent Decree,* a contractual document
that 1s approved by the Court and which contains a ^precise definition
of the remedial actions and a specific rtopener clause.  IBM has
submitted to the Staff a proposed form of Consent Order that could be
ISG14BB                            2                            B80015

-------
                                                      9 Sept enter 1988

used in lieu of the unilateral.  Section 13304 Order format.  We believe
that the Consent Order approach  1s  the best way to address the reopener
Issue and several other Issues which are presented by the proposed
unilateral SCR Order.  We urge the  Board to consider using a Consent
Order format; however, we understand that the Staff's present Intent 1s
to utilize a unilateral Order.

In this light, we suggest that the  Order should contain a specific
Finding that discusses the policy Issues Addressed 1n this cotiment and
establishes the context 1n which future changes to the Order will be
evaluated.

We suggest the following new Finding:

    •The Board recognizes that IBM has already performed extensive
    Investigative and remedial work ensUe  and off site;  and that IBM  Is
    being ordered hereby to perform substantial additional  remedial
    tasks.  It 1s in the public Interest to have  private parties
    undertake such remedial actions promptly and  without prolonged
    litigation or the expenditure of public funds.  The Board
    recognizes that an Important element In encouraging private
    parties, such as IBM, to Invest substantial  resources In
    undertaking such remedial actions 1s to provide them with
    reasonable assurances that the remedial actions called for"Tn
    orders such as this will be the final  remedial actions required to
                                                                880015

-------
                                                      9 September 1988
         *
        •
    be undertaken by the Company.   On the other hand, the Board also
    recognizes Us responsibility  to. protect water quality, public
    health, and the environment and that future developments could
    Indicate that some additional  remedial actions may be advisable.
    The Board HAS considered and balanced these Important
    considerations, and has determined  that the remedial actions
    ordered herein represent the Board's best, current judgment of the
    final remedial action to be required of IBM and  that the Board will
    not require IBM to undertake tny additional remedial actions  1n
    respect to the natters described herein unless conditions  on  the
    site, previously unknown to the Board, are discovered  after the
    date of this Order or Information  Is  received by the Board, 1n •
    whole or in part after the date of this Order, and these previously
    unknown conditions or this Information  Indicates that  the  remedial
    actions required 1n this Order are not protective of public health
    and the environment, and unless, after considering technical
    practicality, cost effectiveness,  State Board Resolution 68-16 and
    the other factors evaluated by the Board  1n  Issuing this Order, the
    Board detemints that such additional medial actions art
    appropriate and necessary.  The advisability of  any other  change to
    this Order, whether requested by IBM or the  Board Staff or whether
    they arise from the five-year review described  In Provision 2.q or
    otherwise, shall also be evaluated on the basis  of these factors.*
I5R148B                            4                            WOOLS

-------
                                                      9 September 1988

 This language  reflects the basic policy Issues  Involved In developing
 an approach to "reopeners" and generally tracks the  type of rtopener
 language now recomnended by EPA under CERCIA.   Additionally, the
 language Includes  references to several specific factors because they
 are not expressly  included 1n Section 13304, although we believe they
 are Implicit 1n the overall structure and Intent of  the Water  Code and
 the Board's role as lead agency for the IBM project.

 Because the re opener  issue would be dealt with 1n the recomnended
 Finding, we suggest the following additional related changes to the
 Proposed Order:

 1.   Revise  the first  sentence of the second paragraph 1n Finding 9 to
     read as follows:

     •The discharger trny be required to perform additional  plume
     characterization  1f «on1tor1ng results Indicate that potential
     conduits aay have transmuted chemicals to deeper aquifers and If
     the Executive Officer or the Board determines that such results
     Indicate • reasonable possibility that the Order nay need to be
     changed under  the criteria described  In Finding   -    (the
     •Reopener" Finding).*

*2.   Delete  the last sentence of Finding 17.                 -*•":
IS614BP,                            5                           880015

-------
                                                      9 September  1988

3.  Delete the last sentence of Finding 18.

4.  Delete Finding 21.  (Note that the report requirements described
    1n the last sentence of this Finding are dealt with in
    Provisions 2«r and 2.v below.)

5.  Add the following sentence to the end  of Provisions 2.r and 2.v:

    •Such technical reports shall not be required unless  the  Executive
    Officer or the Board determine* that such new Information indicates
    a reasonable possibility that the Order ny need to be changed
    under the criteria described In Finding _ (the "Reopener1
    Finding).-

6.  Delete Provision 6.

7.  Revise Provision 14 to read as follows:
                       •                               •     •
    •The Board will rtvlev this Order periodically and «ay revise the
    requirements when and If necessary under the criteria described 1n
    Finding  •     (the -Reopener" Finding).*
              •                           •                         .
The Staff Report also contains several  statements regarding possible
changes in the Order.  See pages 8, 9, 10, and 12.  If our suggested
changes 1n the Order are made, the record should reflect that these
XSG148B

-------
                                                              9 September  1988
                                                *
                                               •
         Garments  1n  the Staff Report are superseded by the text of the Order
         Itself.
         JURISDICTIONS. MATTERS
                       to  be  conn It ted to cooperation with  the Regional Board.
         These comments are being submitted 1n the same spirit.  However, and
 ^:-  - fflt»^ee recort^-lBMtnotes that 1t has not conceded that the  Board has
 iucn lie* tntf&nfccgurtadtcttonal power to Issue the proposed Order under Water
.:-  -,   £ede, Sect ton 13304.   IBM believes that Section 13304 (f) provides a
  i  _;.   traslv *cr -challenging the proposed Order.  Additionally,
         Section 13304 (a)  authorizes in Order 1f the waste discharge  'creates,
         or threatens to create, a condition of pollution or nuisance." IBM
         does not concede  that 1U activities have created a present  condition
         or threat of pollution or nuisance, as those terms art defined In the
         Water Code.   Nonetheless, IBM 1s hopeful that 1t can continue to work
         with the  Board 1i a  cooperative, aonadversarlal Banner to address
 ;:: < ca M -gpoand*ater  copdltlOTS 1n the Yldalty of tl* IBM plant.
         IS614BB      ^001S               7                           B80015

-------
                                                      9 September 1988
OTHER ITEMS

Finding 3;  Onslte Chemical Usage

Freon 11 arid 12 are not solvents.  The  tern  "organic solvents" 1n the
second sentence should be replaced with "organic chemicals."

Finding 4

The second, third, and fourth sentences 1n Finding 4 contain
conclusory language with which IBM cannot agree.  IBM  suggests that
these sentences be revised to read as follows:

    •In November 1981, additional Investigation revealed that these
    chemicals were found In nearby groundwater and a comprehensive,
    site-wide Investigation program was Initiated as requested by the
    Regional Board Staff.  Other sources of potential  releases of
    chemicals were found at tht IBM site, Including a  possible source
    of Free/) 113.  Aeon* tfce possible sources of releases, the
    discharger Identified certain tank and pipeline failures and tank
    and sump overflows."
                                             *
Additionally, and as a general comment, IBM objects to the use of terms
such as "pollution- and "pollutant" In the proposed Order tndfKe Staff
Report to the extent that these phrases carry my Implication that
IS6148B                            8                            880015

-------
                                                      9 September 1988

there 1s, or has been, any significant risk to public health or the
environment.

Finding 6

The third sentence ef Finding 6 suggests that the chemicals which may
have been released from the IBM site are present 1n the area beyond
Eden vale Gap.  This 1s the so-called "Undefined Area1.  As IBM has .:
previously stated. It does not believe such t conclusion 1s warranted.
Although concentrations §f certain of the chemicals nay be found In the
Undefined Area, It has not been established that these ire from
releases at the IBM site.  Numerous other potential sources exist.
Accordingly, IBM requests the deletion of this sentence.

In respect to the last sentence of Finding 6, IBM acknowledges that no
other responsible party has yet been associated with  the ehenlc&ls
found 1n the area extending to the Edenvale Gap; but  the Company
reserves Its right to Identify and take  appropriate action In respect
to any party that tecoaes Identified is  • source of nch chalctls.

Finding 8:  Effects on water Supply Wells
                                          .             <*
The second sentence should be revUed  as follows:

    •Some public and private drinking  water supply wells have been
    affected
ISG148B                            9                            160015

-------
                                                      9 Septenfcer 1988
                                                                       •
                                                                      *
The third sentence should be revised to read:

    "...regular service from its water supply  wells and drinking water
    supply from some private wells was discontinued, even though..."

The last sentence should be replaced by the following sentence:

    •One public drinking water supply well has been token out of               jf
    service and one has been destroyed since the  Investigation began."

Finding lit  Effects of Declining firoundwater Levels

The following paragraph should be added  to Finding 11  to clarify the
fact that IBM 1s not solely responsible  for  groundwater changes  In the
Santa Teresa basin:

    •Notwithstanding these reductions In the discharger's  extraction
    rates, groundwater levels have continued to decline.  Pimping and        ' "
    recharge activities wltMn the Santa Teresa firoundwater tasln by
    others affects vertical and lateral  hydraulic gradients and  nay
    Impact plume «1g ration control at the IBM  site and off site.
    Furthermore, the overall Imbalance In the  hydrologic budget  for the
    Santa Teresa Groundwater Basin 1s beyond the  sole control of IBM."
ISG148B                            10                            680015

-------
                                                      9 September 1988

Find*re 14;  Lead Regulatory Agency and Applicable Laws

The last sentence should be replaced with the following wording:

    •Even though, since 21 June 1988, the IBM site has been proposed to
    be dropped from consideration ts a CERCLA site, the Regional Board
    will continue to regulate the remediation under CERCLA as amended
    by SARA."

IBM continues to believe that a clear confirmation of DHS and EPA
concurrence with this Order and remediation plan ts necessary.  This
needs to be the subject of further discussions  between IBM and  the
Involved agencies.
                •• .                                              ' . '• •
Finding 15;  Alternative Plans Evaluated

We note that six alternative plans were evaluated,  not five, and that
Alternative € was rtconmendedr not Alternative 5.

Finding 16;  Croundwater Extraction and Reuse

The second sentence should be revised ts follows to wore accurately
reflect State Water Resources Control  Board Resolution No. 88-88:
ISG148B                            11                            88001S

-------
                                                      9 September 1988

     •If  use  or  recharge of significant amounts  1s not proposed for the
     period after January 31. 1989. the discharger shall fully Justify
                                                             j»i;\*t
     reasons  for not  using or recharging the groundvater.*

 Finding  18;  Hazard  Indices

 The  statement 'A NCHI value greater than 1.0 Indicates  that health
 tffects  may  occur due to long tern exposure" 1s.Inaccurate.  In  fact,
 no human health tffects would b« expected at concentrations hundreds of
 times higher than those resulting In a NCHI of 1.0.  A more accurate
 statement should read that an NCHI of 1.0 Indicates that t,i of the
 chemicals of Interest found 1n the drinking water aquifers offslte  are
 present  at concentrations equal to or below (better than) their
 relevant drinking water criteria.

 Finding  19                                           -

 To clarify and  complete the findings regarding State Board
-Resolution €8-16. wt suggest that the last sentence of Finding 19 read
 as follows:                                                      -

     •The proposed remediation levels, based on currently available
     Information, are acceptable at this  site given that the United
     degradation which would be present at  these proposed  remediation
     levels would not exceed any established water  quality policies;
 ISG148B                            1?

-------
                                                      9 September 1988

    that the resultant water quality would be well below (I.e., better
    than) applicable health criteria; that some limited degradation has
    alread^ occurred and cannot practicably be totally reversed; and
    that the proposed remedial levels would not unreasonably affect
    beneficial uses and are consistent with naxlmum public benefit.
    The proposed remediation levels are also consistent with the policy
    guidelines 1n Water Code Sections 13241 tnd 13000."

Finding 20;  Remediation Coals for the A-Aoulfer  Zone

This finding should Indicate that the remediation goals  In Table  2
apply only to the transmlsstve areas of the A-aqu1fer zone.  This 1s
consistent with the goals proposed In the draft Comprehensive  Plan and
the draft Comprehensive Plan Supplement tnd recognizes the practical
limitations of extraction from Iow-transm1ss1ve areas.  Specific
criteria for defining these areas will be Included In relevant
technical reports.

The second sentence «f Finding 20 should be svdlfitd to read as
follows:                                •••    •

    •The lever for the transmlsslve areas of the A-aqulfer ....•
1*61488                            13                            880015

-------
                                                      9 September  1988

Finding 20;  Remediation Goals for Son  (Also see Corrment on
             Provision 2. Task 7)

The soil remediation goal should be 100  times the applicable DHS
drinking water action level (DUAL) or equivalent  (see Table 2 of
tentative order) rather than 1 ppm for tach chemical of concern.  The
1 ppm  (1 ing/Kg) goal appears arbitrary and not  scientifically based on
risk assessment and chemical-specific fate tnd  nobility character-
1st1cs.  For example, the 1 ppm goal appears to be  Inconsistent with
other State and RWQCB guidelines for fuel leak  cleanups.  Furthermore,
the soil remediation goal should be applied only  1n areas where there
1s a reasonable potential for exposure that nay afftct  public health or
the environment.

The risk assessment-based approach Is discussed In  Appendix 6 of the
draft Comprehensive Plan, which has been favorably  reviewed by the
agencies.  That discussion demonstrated that, at  a  level of 100 tines
the DUAL, axposura through Inhalation of wapors from subsurface
chemical concentrations and potential Migration to groundwater vert not
expected to be significant; I.e., the soil remediation goal as proposed
by IBM Is consistent with other  remediation goals for the site.  This
approach was previously reconnended to the RWQCB (Kennedy/Jenks/Ch 11 ton
letter of 22 July 1988 forwarded to RWQCB by IBM letter dated 25 July
1988).               .                                        ~~~
ISG148B                             14                            880015

-------
                                                      9 September 1988

 The  third  sentence of Finding 20 should be  revised to read as follows:

     •These remediation levels are at or below drinking water health
     criteria,....•

 The  fourth sentence of Finding 20 should be codified to read as
 follows:

     •The toll remediation goal 1$  *~pt<* 100 times the DHS drinking
     water action level (DWAL1 or equivalent (see Table 21 for tach
     pollutant 1n areas where there 1s reasonable potential for exposure
     that may affect public health or the environment; a goal 1s  set..."

 Flndino 22         .                        .

 This Finding Is Intended to state that the Board has Bade the findings
 necessary to confine that the renewal action plan Is consistent not
 only with the provisions of the Water Code but alto with applicable
provisions of the Health and Safety Code (relating to remedial action
 plans) and with CERCLA's cleanup standards.  Me suggest these
 clarifications to the Finding:
                                                                   •
     •In considering the final remedial action plan, the Board has
     considered not only the requirements of the California Utter Code
     (Including Section 13304) but also the requirements under the
ISG148B                            15                            880015

-------
                                                      9 September 1988

    California Health and Safety Code relating  to  remedial action plans
    and  the provisions of the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
    Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA) relating  to  cleanup
    standards and  compliance with the National  Contingency Plan  (NCP).
    The  reports that have been submitted by IBM and reviewed by  Staff
    and  the Board  are equivalent to the type of feasibility  studies
    which are called for by Health and Safety Code Section 25356.1 and
    the  NCP.  After consideration of the factors and criteria that are
    relevant to actions under Water Code Section 13304,  Health and
    Safety Code Section 25356.1 and Section 121 of CERCLA.  the Board
    has  determined that this final remedial action plan Is  protective
    of human health and the environment, attains applicable, relevant
    and  appropriate requirements (ARARs), utilizes permanent solutions
    and  alternative treatment technologies and resource recovery
    technologies to the maximum extent possible for short-term and
    long-term effectiveness, reduces toxlclty, mobility and volume of
    pollutants. Is Implementable. 1s cost effective, and 1s acceptable
    based on the applicable state and federal regulations,  policies and       •  •
    9u1danet.B

Finding  25

IBM does not agree with the Implication that a condition of "pollution1
or "nuisance1 has  been created or threatened.  Likewise, IBM does not
concede  that there 1s any significant threat to the  environment posed
IS6148B                             16                             680015

-------
                                                      9 September 1988

by current conditions or that any further containment or remediation
measures are necessary to alleviate any threat to public health or the
environment.

Finding 26

In respect to compliance with CEQA or any other federal, state or local
permitting rules which night otherwise be considered applicable to
actions under the Order. IBM notes that Section 121(e)  of  CERCLA
appears to provide a specific exemption from such requirements.

Prohibitions

All three of the proposed Prohibitions contain terns such  as "degrade,"
•adversely affect* and 'significant nlgratlon of pollutants above
remediation levels.*  Standing alone, these phrases art too ambiguous
and vague to be Included In an enforceable Order, the violation of
which could expose IBM to substantial penalties.  In light of the wany
specific provisions and tendItlens 1* ttot Order, «e suggest taat the
three Prohibitions are unnecessary and should be deleted.   As a
minimum, the Prohibitions should be clarified to Indicate that the
actions which would be taken by IBM under the Order and the achievement
of the objectives of the Order would not constitute a violation of
Prohibition I.  Also, the Order should be clarified to confto-that a
•migration of pollutants* which does not constitute a  'violation* under
IS6148B                            17                            880015

-------
                                                      9 September 1988

 Specification 3 would not be considered a  "significant migration of
 pollutants above remediation levels" as defined 1n Prohibitions 2
 and 3.

 Specification 3:  Remediation Goals for B- and Deeper Aoulfer lones
 fsee also comment on Section C.I of Groundvater Self-Monitoring
 Program)

The last sentence on page 7 In Specification 3 1s not a  complete
sentence and should be clarified.  Furthermore, calculating  hazard
Indices for • calendar quarter Is Inconsistent with  the  health-based
                                                                            « •
hazard Index approach.  All hazard Indices calculated for th* drift
Comprehensive Plan nave been based on annual avenges and a  minimum of
4 samples.  This Is consistent with the health-based objectives
expressed 1n the draft Comprehensive Plan that evaluated potential
chronic health effects assuming long-term (I.e.,  lifetime) exposure to
low levels of chemicals In drinking water.  This  approach 1s consistent
with EPA's requirements for Monitoring VOCs 1n drinking water supplies       *
on the basis of a running annual average of quarterly samples.
Therefore, chemical concentrations to be used In  hazard Index
calculations or with respect to Table 1 should be running annual
averages calculated quarterly.

Incorrect table references are shown in the denominators 1n the       —
equations for computing the Hazard Indices.  For the NCHI calculation.
XSG148B                            18                            680015

-------
                                                      9 September 1988

the reference 1n the denominator should be to Table 3 and not Table 2.
For the equation computing CHI,  the  reference should be to Table 4
Instead of Table 3.

Specification 4;  Remediation Goals  for A-aou1fer lone

Specification 4 should be modified,  as discussed above for Finding  20,
to read as follows:

    •4.  Final remediation levels for each chemical concentration 1n
    any well 1n the transmlsslve areas of the A-tqu1fer zone tffected
            •
    by pollutants from the discharger shall be equal  to or less than
    the corresponding chemical concentration is listed In Table I £.'

Specification 5;  Reuse Coal

IBM's goal of conserving water resources, ts  feasible and practical,
will help reduce groundwater level declines.  However, IBM's reuse
(even 1f 1t were 1001 of *tts froundwater «xtnct1on for remediation)
will not offset the current basin overdraft such that groundwater
levels will stop declining.

As discussed 1n our 25 July 1988 response to RWQCB's 8 July 1988
foment (No. 5) on Section 4, IBM's historical  groundwater txtftctlon
and water level data provide Insight Into the significance of the
                                   19                            880015

-------
                                                      9 September 1988

volume of IBM's extraction relative to the  overall basin balance.
IBM's 1,900 AFY reduction 1n extraction from 3,100 AFY (1983-1988) to
1,200 AFY (current) did not result 1n a significant  recovery of water
levels.  This lack of response Indicates that a  similar contribution to
the basin (I.e., IBM's reuse of up to an additional  1,200 AFY  compared
with the estimated total current pumping of about 20,000 AFY)  would not
have a significant effect on the basin water levels.
                                                                              n
Specification 5 should be revised to read:

    •The discharger shall optimize, as feasible and practical, with
    a-feal-tf-SCVr Us use of the groundwater extracted from Its
                      t
    cleanup activities.  4ft-«re'SF-t»-pfeveH*-tfe}ayc-4ft-eleaiiup-«'ue-te
Specification 6t  Remediation Coal for Sen

As discussed above for Finding 20, Specification 8 should b* Modified
to read u follows:                                    •

    •6.  The discharger shall remediate soil to • goal of 1 ppm
    100 times the DHS drinking water action level fDWALl or equivalent
    (see Table 2^ for each chemical In areas where there 1s a
    reasonable potential for exposure that may affect public health o"r
    the environment."

-------
                                                     9 September 1988
Specification 7;   Compliance Points        -

Specification 7 should be  replaced with the following,  which  Includes a
11st of Initial compliance wells:

    •7.  Compliance points shall be it offslte monitoring wells within
    the B- tnd deeper aquifer zones, outside the 0.25 NCHI plume
    boundary.  Initially (on the basis of the current plume
    configuration), the  compliance wells will be:

    Edenvale Gap:   35-BC.  36-BCO, 37-BC, 38-BC. 39-BC. 40-BC. and 44-BC

    Laterals  16-B, 15-B,  10-B, 1S-B, 1-B, 7-BU, 7-BL.ind.23-B

    Vertical:  29-6. 24-C, 20-C. 9-C. 5-C, 13-C. 4-C, 6-CU. 8-CL, 1B-C,
    7-C. 1-C, 2-C. 47-0, 9-0,  13-0, 2-D, 9-ND-186, 1-DU.  1-DL, and 11-C

    As the 0.25 MCHI plane ctanoes size, the  Utenl and vertical
    compliance points will be ewved, after RWQCB approval, to those
    existing wells Immediately outside  the 0.25 NCHI plume boundary and
    beneath the plume.*
                                   21                            680015

-------
                                                      9 September 1988

Table 4 of the Groundwater Self-Monitoring Program for the Tentative
Order should be revised to reflect these changes 1n the compliance
point wells.

Add New Specification 8

A new specification 8 should be Included that reads:

    •8.  Interpretation of til  the above specifications shall recognize
    the Inherent constraints placed  on the discharger's ability to
    control groundwater levels, and  potential Migration of chemicals of
    concern due to pimping by other  groundvater users and the apparent
    hydrologlc Imbalance In the Santa Teresa Groundwater  Basin.*

Provision C.2:  Tasks

IBM submitted a proposed Implementation schedule  for the  RAP or
Contingency 2 remediation activities on Figure $-7 of the draft
Supplement dated April 1988.  Tills figure presented IBM's projection  of
the timetable required for project Implementation.  However, the draft
Tentative Order and draft NPDES permit contain task submlttal  dates
that represent significant reductions In the tine available for
Implementation.  IBM has concluded that the task schedule Included 1n
the draft Regional Board documents cannot reasonably be net given the
ISGU8B

-------
                                                       9 September 1988

 typical  needs  of projects having similar complexity and permitting
 requirements.

 Attached 1s a  figure summarizing the time required for major project
 elements.  Time 1s shown to cover necessary Investigations, preliminary
 and final design, tgency reviews and approvals, permitting,
 construction,  tnd startup.

 Interrelationships among major project tasks art also  Indicated.  For
 example, it Is prudent to complete final treatment  facility design
                                                4
 drawings after completion and review of the mid-1989 groundwater
 conditions evaluation to be submitted 1n a report due.  21 August 1989.

 On the basis of these considerations, the Implementation schedule
 attached represents reasonable time frames for  Implementation of the
 necessary project facilities.

 In addition, the RUQCB proposed  completion dates for Task  i (BAAQMD
 Application filed) and Task 7 (8- and Deeper Aquifer Extraction Well
 Installation Proposal) that place each  task out of sequence.  Each  task
 1s discussed separately below.
               *      '                    .                    .:       «
 IBM believes that, under CERCLA Section 121(e), IBM way not be required
"to obtain a permit from the  Bay Area Air Quality Management M*trlct
 for operation of the air stripping  towers.  However,  IBM plans to work
1S6148E.                            23                            880015

-------
                                                      9 September 1988

with this Board and the BAAQMD to ensure that the operation of these
towers does not present any significant risks to health or the
environment.

In the event a permit is necessary, the 21  November 1988 due date for
Task 1 appears to be premature for filing a complete Bay Area A1r
Quality Management District (BAAQMD) application.  Relatively detailed
plans and equipment specifications typically Bust accompany such an
application.  These Items will not be completed by November 1988.  IBM
will initiate liaison with the BAAQMD by 21 November 1988 and will
submit the required applications, ts necessary. 1n • timely Banner
consistent with the attached project schedule.

The proposed completion date (20 February  1989) for Task 7 Is also
premature.  By this date, there will not be sufficient additional
Information on which to base further definition of extraction well
locations and parameter*.  The ntractloe well Installation  proposal
should follow the groundwater condition decision  analysis scheduled for
completion 21 August 1989 (Task 12), after the plan to toe Implemented
Initially has been determined.

Provision 2.1 •

As discussed above. CERCLA Section  121 (e) appears to provide that a
permit for Irrigation use (or other reuse or recharge) of the extracted
water 1s not required.  Nevertheless, IBM Intends to work with the
                                   9A                           _«aoftU

-------
                                                      9 Sept enter  1988

Board to review the substantive  aspects of this matter to ensure that
Irrigation reuse (or other reuse or  recharge) does not present any
significant risks to health or the environment.
Provision 4;  Completion Delays

Provision 4 should be replaced with the following:

    •4.  If the discharger Is delayed. Interrupted or prevented from
    meeting one or wore of the completion dates specified 1n this
    Order, the discharger shall promptly notify the Executive Officer;
    and 1f such delay. Interruption or prevention results from a cause
    or causes beyond the reasonable control of discharger (Including.
 '   with limitation, delays resulting from the time required for action
    by any governmental agency, equipment or delivery delays by third
    parties, strikes, or acts of God) the scheduled completion dates
    shall be extended to the extent made necessary by such cause or
    causes%*

Provision 6;  Quarterly Monitoring Reports       "-

The last sentence should be revised to read as follows:
                                   25                            880015

-------
                                                      9 September  1988

    •Appropriate logs and cross-sections shall be presented In the
    relevant technical reports required by this Order.*
Provision 11

This Specification purports to permit the Board, or Us authorized
representative, to obtain entry,  access to documents, ttc.  IBM Intends
to continue cooperating with the  Board and Us Staff and to provide
relevant data and records.  However, this proposed Specification could,
1n some situations, exceed the power of the Board under Section 13267.
 ,                                                                           «*
IBM reserves Us rights to challenge any requests by the Board or Us
authorized representative, to the extent they are not consistent with
Section 13267,  In any event, we  suggest that subparagraph  (d) of
Specification 11 should be revised to add  "In response to this Order"
to the end of the paragraph.

Provision 13                                                                   i

In light of the provisions of Water Code Section 13271  (relating  to
notifications of hazardous substance discharges), IBM does not believe
that there 1s any need for Specification 13.  The Specification should
be deleted.  If the Specification Is Intended to Impose any duties
beyond those already required under Section 13271, we would aWrtelate
knowing the rationale and statutory basis for this.
ISG148B                            26                            680015

-------
                                                      9 September 1983
 II.   NPDES PERMIT TEKTATIYE ORDER

 Finding  6.B and Effluent Limitation A.3;  Waste 003 Flow Rate

 The  flow rate for «aste 003 nay be as high  a» 2.5 «&l/ under
 conditions (I.e., after the treatment systems become operational).  For
 example,  under recovering groundwater level (Contingency 1) conditions,
 Waste 003 flews of this Magnitude could result  If recharge 1s not
 feasible  and other reuse options ire not Identified or If recharge
 wells are temporarily shut down.  Thus, the 1.0 NGD flow limitation
 shown Is  Inappropriate, especially as a dally euxlnum or Instantaneous
 maximum.  The flow rate limitation for Waste 003 should'be revised from
 1.0  MGD to 2.5 NGD for the final conditions.

 Finding 6;  Description of Waste 005

 The  penultimate paragraph (first paragraph on page 3) should be  revised
«s follows:

     •Due  to the high yield of groundwater from monitoring wells, low
     pollutant concentrations, scattered monitoring well  locations,  .nd
     the Intermittent nature of the discharge, polluted  groundwater,  as
 -    described In Waste 005, produced from Intermittent  groundwrter
ISG148B                            27                            880015

-------
                                                      9 September  1988

     sample  collection from all aouUer zones, and aquifer testing of
     the  B-  and deeper aquifers will  be untreated prior to discharge."

 Replace  the sentence 1n the original text that  follows the above
 sentence with:

     •Because of the variability 1n aqulfler test conditions  (e.g.,
    water quality and flow rate), treatment and disposal of  groundvater
    produced from aquifer testing of A-aqu1fer zone wells will be
    considered en t case-by-case basis."

The maximum dally volume of groundwater produced from sampling the
source-  and plume-ana A-aqu1fer zone monitoring wells that  have
concentrations exceeding the A-aqu1fer zone target remediation goals
 (which are  generally Much more stringent than the Waste 003  tnd  004
Interim  limits) 1s small compared with the total  storm sewer discharge
from the IBM site.  Of the 21 A-*4vlfer zone von1 toring wells sampled
that currently have concentrations exceeding the target goals,  8 are
wpled  tlnonthljT 
-------
                                                     9 September 1983
                  *
RA-2. R3-2, and RB-3 (about 600 gallons per minute,  or 360,000 gallons
over 10 hours).
Finding 12;  Effluent Limits

The sixth sentence should be modified as follows:

    •Limits ire subject to reconsideration when additional
    4«fiflM%4t«-e?-f**a*-fMtt'eURes or revised regulations are
    ava4*a»4a adopted."

The last sentence should be modified to read as follows?

    •However, BAT In this case differs from other eases due to the
    higher flow rates am , low Influent chemical concentrations, and
    treatment siting constraints.*

Effluent Limitations A.2. A.3. and A-4;  Oil and Crease Analysis

The oil and grease limitations should be revised to allow IBM, at Us
option, to monitor this parameter as oil and grease or a  total organic
carbon (TOC), rather than specifying oil. and grease is "PC.
rrnnn                            w                           BSOOIS

-------
                                                      9 September 1988

 Effluent  Limitations A.3 and A.4:  Waste  003  and Waste 004
 Instantaneous Maximum Limits for Inorganic  Chemicals

 The  effluent limitations for some Inorganic chemicals appear to be 1n
 the  range of background levels for groundwaters In  the Santa Teresa
 Groundvater Basin.  IBM believes that It should not be responsible for
 effluent  limitations that ire beyond Its control due to  the natural
 environment.
       •
 Effluent  Limitations A.4;  Waste 004 Instantaneous  Maximum Limits for
 1.1.1-tMchloroethane and Freon 113

 The  40 ug/1 effluent limitation for I,l.l-tr1chloroethane (TCA)  and  for
 Freon  113 would be too low for an Instantaneous maximum limit.  The
                                    •                            '.    ' •
 projected water quality for offsite wells presented 1n IBM's NPOES
 permit application and In the draft Comprehensive Plan Supplement Is
 based  on  long-term average values.  To account for the observed
 significant fluctuations from average concentrations, unknown
concentrations 1a Tuturt offslU extraction wells. «ad aasslblt
 fluctuations In spray nozzle treatment performance, the limits for TCA
 and  Freon 113 should be set at or above 60 ug/1 for each chemical.
1S6148B                            30                            880015

-------
                                                      9 September  1988

 E'^'.-e-t Limitation A.7:  Bloassav Testing

 IBM  requests clarification of the Intent, design and protocols of Lrlow
 through 96-hour bloassays" for groundwater discharges,  particularly at
 offslte locations.  In addition, IBM requests  that  the  relationship
 between these t>1 MS says and the bloassay test  program requested by
 RWQCB 1n Us letter dated 12 August 1988 be  clarified.

 Receiving Water Limitations B.I and 6.2

 It 1s unclear how receiving water limitation:  (e.g., dissolved oxygen,
 pH, temperature, ttc.) tpply to groundwater discharges routed through
 storm sewers.  However, assuming that they do  apply, receiving water
 quality should be Judged on the basis of the cvncept of no net adverse
 Impact, taking Into account upstream water quality when appropriate.

 Provision 6:  Re-evaluation of Permit

The first ttnttAC* should bttodlfltd to rtad as follows:

    •This permit may be rt-tvaiuated by the Regional Board prior to the
    expiration date after the tine new regulations regarding  non-point
    source discharges are adopted and Imp 1 emerged.•
ISG1488                            31                             880015

-------
                                                     9 September 1983

 III.  GROUNDWATER SELF-MONITORING PROGRAM

       '' • **
 Section C.I;  Violations of Requirements

 The first paragraph provides for Increasing the frequency of sample
 collection and analysis.  However, the provision for subsequent
 decrease 1n sampling frequency 1s not addressed (see following comment
 regarding C. 3. d).

 Consistent with mediation goals, the second paragraph should be
•odlfled as follows:

        •If 4Mftitet-efHMFe-tKaR-IO-Mt-ef-e4thef
                                           a  running annual average
        concentration exceeds a target remediation goal for the B- and
        deeper aoulfer tones, or 1f i running  annual averaoe hazard
        Index exceeds 0.25 NCHI or 1.0 CHI  1n  £ compliance point well,
        the 41*ehArger stall 4ocrttst sample collection «nd analysis as
        follows."

The third paragraph (and Site Cltanup Requirement Specification Task 3)
Indicates that hazard Indices will be based en calendar quarterly
averages.  Calculating hazard Indices for a calendar quarter TT
Inconsistent with the health-based hazard Index approach.  All hazard
XSG148B                            32                            680015

-------
                                                     9 Sep    ar 1988

Indices calculated for the  draft Comprehensive Plan have been based on
annual averages and a minimum  of 4 samples.  This 1s consistent with
health-based objectives and the EPA's compliance monitoring
requirements (running annual average of quarterly samples) for VOCs  1n
drinking water.  To provide meaningful quarterly Information, running
annual averages c&luUled  quifUrly she-.Id t: rysclflsd-

C.3.d;  Self-Monitoring Plan Revisions

Consistent with the 14 July 1988  Proposed Revisions, Phase II. IBM
Self-Monitoring Plan, the following criterion should be added:

       •(5)  Altar wrap!Ing frequency basad on tvaluation of collactive
             database."

To cover those cases of Increase in sampling frequency ts described 1n
C.I, an additional criterion for SMP revision should be added:

       •(7)  Following a temporary Iftcraase Ut sanpHig frequency,  as
             described In C.I,,the regular sampling frequency will
             rusume after 4 samples show stable or decreasing
             concentrations (I.e., iot Increasing ewre than 50 percent
             RPO between samples).*
                                                                 680015

-------
                                                     9 September 1583

 IV.  RWQC3 STAFF REPORT

 Page 6:  NCHI Calculation

The denominator of the equation calculating the NCHI should refer to
TaLie 3 uui.cau «T Taule 2.   In the expanded equation shown at the
bottom of Page 6, the denominator for TCE Is 52 (rather than 5 as
shown), which is the relevant criterion for noncarclnogenlc health
effects for TCE.

Page 7;  CHI Calculation

The denominator shown In the equation at the top of Page 7 should refer
to Table 4. not Trblt 3.

Page 9:  Third Item Under •Implementation of the Draft Remedial Action
Plan...* B- and C-aoulfer lone Extraction wen  Clusters

As Addressed in IBM'* 22 July 0988 response to Itm 6 of the RWQCB
staff's letter of 6 July 1988 concerning  the Proposed Remedial Action
Plan, extraction fron the C-aqu1fer zone  will  not  prevent downward
vertical chemical algratlon.  It would, in fact. Increase the  leakage
from the B-aquiff zone thereby spreading pollutants vertically
downward, and would Increa-vthe hydrologlc lefcalance of the_Smta
Teresa Basin.
IS6148B                            94                            880015

-------
                                                      9 September 1S8S
 In the  Santa Teresa Basin, water levels are  higher 1n upper aquifer
 zones than  1n  lower zones.  The downward vertical hydraulic gradient 1s
 caused  by large-scale groundwater extraction from the C- and deeper
 aquifer zones.  Because this downward vertical  hydraulic gradient
 exists  between aquifer zones, rroundwater 1n the upper  zones has
 migrated and will continue to nigrate to lower aquifer  zones.

 IBM alone cannot prtvent downward vertical migration of groundwater.
 To reduce further vertical chemical Migration, IBM has proposed to
 aggressively remediate the A- and B-aqu1fer zones both at the plant
 site boundary, at enslte areas, and offslte.  By Initiating additional
 remediation of groundwater In the A-aqu1fer zone, the source §f
 chemicals to the B- and deeper aquifer zones will be controlled further
 by reducing vertical migration to the B- and deeper aquifer zones.
 Similarly,  by  remediating the 0.25 NCHI plume 1n the B-aqu1fer zone,
 continued vertical migration to the C- and deeper aquifer zones will be
 further reduced.

 IBM would.consider a slight revision of the RAP saturated thickness
 criterion to accommodate additional groundwater extraction In the
 B-aqu1fer zone 1fs (1) th. Hazard Indices Increase and clearly threaten
 to  exceed the  cleanup goa's 1n the C- and deeper aquifer zones, and
=<2)  additional Information collect*"* by the Santa Teresa Baslo*~
 Groundwater Management Task Force on groundwater level and groundwater
                                                                  880015

-------
                                                       9 September 1988

 basin conditions Indicates that groundwater  level conditions have
 stabilized at slightly less than RAP  conditions.  Groundvater
 extraction from the C- tnd deeper aquifer zones  Is not I recommended
 remedial  action to prevent additional downward vertical chemical
 Bigration.

 We note that the target remediation goals 1n the B- and deeper aquifer
 zones are shown in Table 1. not Table 2.
ISG148B

-------
BUtT^ABEA
////////

-------
                                             SocieiY  DOC.
August 11, 1988

Regional Water Quality Control Board                  GUALHY COMT?.OL 20£;D
IBM - COMMUNITY RESPONSE
Attention:  Community Relations Officer
1111 Jackson Street,  Room 8
Oakland, CA  94607

Dear Community Relations  Officer:

The Sequoia Audubon Society's Conservation Committee has reviewed the "IBM
San Jose Superfund Site,  Fact Sheet 13.*  This  1s  In relation to the Proposed
?1nal  Cleanup Plan for IBM San Jose Site.  The  proposed plan lists six cleanup
 Iternatlves.  We favor f6:  Achieve better than safe drinking water levels
lAqulfer Protection with  Safety Factor assuming varying levels of groundwater
1n the aquifer).  Alternative 16 1s the best plan  to ensure complete cleanup
of toxins and to prevent  them from entering drinking water.
Sincerely.
Vice President

-------
SA.S7X CLA*A COUtfTY
WUFACTUJUNG CROUP
        C-wwvwC£0
            I. MAM
         OLl
        •J.I
         OAVB
                     August 17, 1988
Peter Snyder,  Chairman
Regional Vater Quality  Control Board
1111 Jackson Street
Oakland, CA 94607

Dear Chairman Snyder:

The Santa Clara County  Manufacturing  Group
consists of 90 coapanies located in Santa Clara
County employing ever 200,000 people.  Employees
•nd families of member  companies number veil over
half a million people who lira  and work in  this
Yelley.  Ve are Titally concerned with the  health
of oar employees and all citizens as  well as with
the continued economic  health of tha  community.

Ve support, with some  reservation, the IBM  plan.

la developing their cleanup plans our member
companies have acknowledged thair responsibilities
by spending vail over  $200M to data,  just  in  Santa
Clara County, monies that would normally go to
atockholders, employees and future investments.
Ve have aot asked for mad do mot vast public  funds
for this purposa.
                     For  aeveral years the Clean Vatar Task Force,
                     a    sored  by  the Manufacturing  Greap, has been
                     1     red in public apeak!
                     pc    -making groups, an
                     •c     -.on  materials  oa  c
                     COG   /.  Va have baea co
                      that  industry  rill do  wb.
                             testifying before key
                           *bliahiag public
                           :>ap iaaues ia this
                            tent in damonatratiag
                           ia necessary to pursue
rational cleanup piana (aaa attached principles).

Our afforts and prograaa are being haapered by the
lack of *p«cific foala, »aaad oa  the aest
•cisjntific mad technical data,  to guide our
afforts.  Va are vary concerned that in this  plan
these objective goals are  still not apparent.
Vhat we see reflected in this plan ia  a aubjeetive
compromise rather  than a mat of goala  baaed oa
good aciaaca.  Tha presentation to tha community
oa August 11 was filled with tha  tona  that, while
a Hazard Index (B.I.)«1 would protect  the  safety
of tha aquifer and tha public,  going to four  times
battar was a good  thing to do.  The^froposed  order
seems to fall short  of providing  IBM vith clear
attainment goala even baaed oa  tha four times
aafer than necessary rules. This ia

-------
Page 2
August 17, 1988
erident in the paragraph vhich specifies that when
that goal is reached at any  point of tine, the
board will then decide if the goal should be
changed.  It is just not possible to build optimal
plants to do the cleanup vith this type of Boring
target.  Our indistries recognise and agree with
the need to siodify goals when new information
concerning bealtu n**ndards  arise, but goals
should not be changed arbitrarily.

Ve believe this plan has within  it the ingredients
for a policy solution to the unknown goals
problem.  Since the H.I. is  defined to be the
xatio of the concentration of the chemical vhich
ia present to the amount vhich  ia aafa (aee
attachment oa E.I.) it ia the ideal route for  the
atate and regional board to communicate  uniform
cleanup goala baaed on good acienea.  Thua the
state might choose a H.I. of unity ma the
appropriate guideline mince thia apecifiaa that
all sites will be cleaned «p to the point of
adquately protecting the environment.  Thia  allows
flexibility for each mite to modify its  specific
H.I. ma m fraction of the specific  geology,
probability of contamination of drinking water
supplies, etc.  Thia local option might  result in
an E.I. greater than one or leas than one,

Uae of the B.I.»1 mm m general guideline provides
m vay to balance th» issue of vater conservation
vith clemaap.  If adopted there vomld mo longer be
a Question mt the state Icrel that  cleannp to m
level of B.I.-l is mot m vmste of the etate'a
vater resource.  Setting much m foml vbald help to
reduce *he public's confuaioa about the
appropriate balance betveea protection of the
environment, health concerns, vater. co'naervation
mad cost,  a  B.I. of  one is mot in may sense a
permiaaion to pollute  op to that level.  Ve
support tough standards  to  mvoi ' may future
contamination of  the  aquifer.   At the same  time ve
meed to mdopt rational policier for cleaning  up
contaminmtioa from  past events  vhich is already
there from m vide variety of practices *»hieh  ve
all thought vere  mcceptsble mt  the time.  The lack
of much m guideline  leads mm to msk the regional
board "vhy is may vater beiag  pumped to achieve
cleanup goals vhich  sre acknowledged to be  four
times safer than  are mecessary  to protect health
mad the environment?"

-------
Page 3
August 17. 1988
Ve request that the board  publish the aaount of
money that IBM will have to spend to achieve an
H. I.*.25 versus a H.I.-1.  Ve also request the
Board publish the amount of vater that will be
puaped and dumped to achieve an H.I.».25 versus an
H.I.-l.  Ve feel this vill assist the public in
understanding the board**  priorities and
trade-offs.

The second concern that ve have with this plan is
that there has been unreasonable ti»e and cost to
get to where ve are.  Part of  the reason has been
the lack of goals, part has been the overlapping
multiple bureaucracy which la  so complex that it
costs over $2M to generate the necessary paper
work to define a cleanup  plan, and  part la  because
we have decided the only  appropriate decision
proceaa is that of coasensua.  Vhile we accept the
advantages of having a consensus, we ace eoae real
dangers with the consensus process  aa ve have
watched it work in developing  this  plan.  It takes
yeara to define all the engineering and technical
parameters associated with a  plan  aueh aa this and
during this time the consensus aa  to what is .best
for the community ia most likely  to change  as  it
has in the IBM plan.  Our concern  ia that before
the requisite plants and facilitiea for  this  plan
can be built, the consensus ia likely  to  change
again.   Ve need more leadership and laaa
averaging of opinion ia deciding theae critical
iaauea.  Tbia leadership aeeda to extend to
informing the pntlic that their intereata are
being protected.

Finally ve «oat Bake a coaaent on the overall coat
of thia plan aa it relates to the future of our
other cleanup plans  ia the county.  Vhile thia
plan develops a rationale for chooaiag a I.I. of
.25, the preaentation on August 11 allowed the
iaterpretatioa that  the coat  of H.I. of .25 ia  *
Justified on the  basis that IBM can afford it.   Ve
•eke a atrong request that aa ve move into other
final cleanup plane, the  board focaa on vhat ia
beat for the health  of the people  and the—^
protection of the environment rather than  their
Judgment aa to vhat  a  given coapany can afford.
Ve vould expect  any  gnideliaea vhich are developed
vonld be applied  evenhandedly to all of our
contaainatioa problema including gaaoline  tank
leaka and  hone  coataaiaatioa  aoarcea.

-------
Page 4
August 17, 1988
Ve support the specific plan  as  presented.
However, we hope our concerns will  be  taken into
account as other plans are developed.  Ve would be
happy to work in cooperation  with the  board in
further development of these  ideas.

Ve have and continue to be a  strong advocate  for
the leadership role of the XWQCB is Santa Clara
County cleanup plans.  Oar comments are  intended
to be constructive and to contribute to  an
improved cleanup proceas.
Sincerely
Gary Bu
Presid

GB:lk
Attachments

-------
                        pro coorowiTza QJATOP
1)   Cocparu.es accept their responsibility to protect public health
     and the environment.


2)   Companies will complete a thorough investigation of contaminated
     areas.


3)   Companies will comply with all applicable environmental statutes
     and regulations.


4)   Cleanup programs will proceed with all practical speed consistent
     with timely decisions by the regulatory agencies.


5)   Cleanup plans will  be based on scientific information and cleanup
     techniques which balance risks, costs, and benefits.


6)   Cleanup plans BUSt  contain measurable goals that  state the require-
     ments for the completion of cleanup activity in a planned, consistent
     manner.                     •


7)   Companies will  inform and  help educate employees and the community
     of cleanup plans, relative risks, and other related measures.


8)   The best interests  of the community are served by expending valuable
     resources on cleanup activity up to,  but not beyond, what is accessary
     to protect puhlic health and the environment.


9)   Companies expect public officials to support, cleanup plaas based
     on good acienca that rmfLecta the risks,  casts aad benefits  to
     society.


 10)  Public agencies and officials must be proactive  in public education
     on toxics.   When cleanup  plans have been defined which protect  public
     health and the environment, the  appropriate agencies aust actively
     support and communicate this  to  the  public.
 lev. 6/2/87

-------
Comments on Proposed Final Cleanup Plan for IBM, San Jose Site

S nbmcig£ ty (FID in Mag «nd »ddrm tf joo with to receive a written response)
 Street Address:
 City:   ,_fl»x,
                        1/7^ />  "
                                 State: C^  Zip:

WntteB ******•***•• mxj bt- BiHp*nft4 tt the Fnb&c
Regional Water Quality Control Board
IBM- CX)MKrUNTTY RESPONSE
Att* CoouDuoity RelAtioos Officer
1111 Jackson Street, Room 6000
Omkland,Ca 94607
                                                         /

                                                     A / *s
                                                     OIIC* t
                                                                 /  .^^^
                                                                                          V

-------
                                                                                    /«-
 Comments on Proposed Final Cleanup Plan for IBM, San Jose Site

 Submitted by-^(F3I a name tad tddrtu if you wub to receive a written recpoote)

 Name:  JT^V^  Ut*,& tf-i r.

 Street Address:  /V^r  Is//  ^"/^d ^ ,
 City: VC^ ."I^Sr"              Sute:  Z>T Zip:   ? *T//
                                               //*)>    feH
Regiooil Water Quality Coetrol Bo«4
IBM • COMMUNITY RESPONSE
Attl Q*»*" •""*"*> RdfttlOBS OffiOBT
UUJtckion Street, Roan 6000
O*kknd,C» 94607

-------
/"
                                   ,r>a


  or c/*s)c
    JL C 3    ^c^--      Os*
                        &• Jp
                                                     CALIFORNIA RWin
                                                           flUG 101988

          o/x    £*—     fy^^7                    QUALITY nONTR0l

-------

            n Proposed Final Cleanup Plan for IBM, San Jose Site

Snbmincdby.
Street Address:   35V O/9e $^. . ~ ~ £>
City,    So^J-nts^          State:
                                                             ? ^   *--'
           ter Qufity Cootrol Bovd
 IBM - COMMUNITY RESPONSE
 Art: Community Rektiou Officer
 Ull Jackson Street, Room 6000
 Oakland, Ct 94607

-------
  E AGUES  OF WOMEN VOTERS OF  SANTA CLARA COUNTY
LOS AtTOS-MTs VIEW AREA
SAN IQSE-SASTACLARA
CUPERTINO SUNNYVALE
LOSGATOS SARATOGA
     August 9, 1988                                     AUGH1988

                                                   QUALITY CONTROL BOARD
     Regional Water Quality Control Board
     IBM -COttlUNITY RESPONSE
     Attention: Community Relations Officer
     1111 Jackson Street, Room B
     Oakland, California 94607

     Gentlemen:

     The League of Women Voters supports comprehensive measures to provide
     maximum protection to human health and the environment from the
     adverse effects of hazardous materials. We believe an integrated approach
     should be taken to prevent harmful exposures through soil, surface, and
     groundwater contamination; bloaccumulatton, air pollution, and direct
     contact. Cleanup of hazardous wastes should meet health based standards
     that include a margin of safety above the assessed risk.  Maximum
     cons ideraticm should be given to the effects on the economy and
     employment. Minimal consideration should be given to costs or effects on
     the price of the product .

     We have reviewed the Proposed final Cleanup Plan for the IBM San Jose
     Site. Alternative No. 6, designed to clean up groundwater four times
     better than safe drinking water levels with provision for onsite reuse of
     cleaned up water has merit  The Hazard Index is a good approach for taking
     into consideration potential cumulative or combined effects of mixtures
     of  pollutants, since it effectively lowers the permissible amount of each
     component as the number of pollutants increases.               ^

     The proposal also appears to be a workable solution to the problem of
     varying groundwater levels caused by drought or excessive rain over the
     twenty year period.

-------
LEAGUES OF WOMEN VOTERS OF SANTA CLARA COUNTY
LOS ALTOS-VTS V!£* AREA
SAN IOSE-SASTACLARA
CUPERTINO SUNNYVALE
L05 C.VTOS-SARATOGA
PALO ALTO
                Regional Water Quality Control Board—2  (8/9/88)

      IBM should continue to look for ways to use the treated water both on and
      offslte, since the volume will undoubtedly exceed IBM's present water
      needs onsite. Relnjectlon onslte needs careful monitoring to make certain
      that it does not move the plume in ways to allow it to go.off site again. We
      assume that the monitoring wells are 1n place to assure that relnjectton
      works as planned. If drought continues and water levels go even lower, It
      may be necessary to reconsider recharging the treated water Into the
      percolation ponds, but unless conditions become really severe it Is best to
      avoid doing that.

      We are very concerned about the potential for Freon getting into the air
      during the aeration treatment of the water.  Since Freon has become a
      worldwide upper atmosphere problem, every opportunity should be taken to
     prevent escape of any amount into the atmosphere. IBM should be required
      to carbon treat the air from alrstripplng operations to remove possible air
     pollutants even though the amounts are so small that with dilution they
     would not affect human health through breathing.

     With proper monitoring and tne addition of carton treatment of stripped
     air, Alternative No. 6 appears to be a careful and appropriate cleanup
     proposal.

     Sincerely,                                                     ~   ;
     Ann Clifton, Chair
     County Council of the
     Leagues of Women Voters
     of Santa Clara County

     Cupertino-Sunnyvale
     Los Altos/Mountain view Area

-------
  APPENDIX D
CORRESPONDENCE

-------
                          IBM HAILING LIST
(1)  State Water Resources Control Board
     P.O. Box 100
     6acraa«nto, CA 95814
     Attn:.  Gil Torres

     Harding Lavson A*soc.
     P.O. Box 578
     Novato, CA 94948
     Attn:  Randy Stone

(2)  USEPA                                                        r*
     215 Fremont St.
     San Francisco, CA 94105
     Attn: Mary Masters

(3)  Department of Health Services
     Toxics Substance Control Division
     2151 Berkeley Way, Annex 7
     Berkeley, CA 94704                                       .
     Attn: Bovard Batayama

(4)  Santa Clara County Health Department
     2220 Moorpark Avenue
     San Jose, CA 95128
     Attn: Lee Esquibel                                           -

(5)  Santa Clara Valley Water District                   .
     5750 Almadeo expressway                                  T
     San Jose, CA 95138
     Atta: John T. O'Hallorma.
           Tea Iwmnura   -                                       % ^
           Walt Wadlow

(6)  IBM
     5600 Cottle Road
     San Jose, CA 95193      -
     Attn: Hay Xerby

-------
                                         CALIFORNIA REGIONAL WATB?
5to»« »f Colrfornio

LA             j                          •     SEP 07 1933
Memorandum

                                          QUALITY CONTROL BOARD
To   !   Steven Ritchie                            °°" '    September 6, 1988
       Executive Officer
                                                   ^4
       California Regional Water Quality         sublet:  Additional Comments
        Cr«r,trol Board               .              Tentative Order for Site
       San Francisco Bay Region                   Cleanup and NPDES Permit
       1111 Jackson Street, Room 6040             for  IBM, San Jose, Santa
       Oakland, CA 94607                          Clara  County  W43-000
                                                  CWC-IBM
       Clifford L. Bowen,
       District Engineer
       Monterey District
       Public Water Supply Branch
       .This is an additional comment to our August 29,  1988, memo
       regarding the Tentative Order for Site Cleanup and NPDES
       Permit for IBM, Sit* Cleanup Levels.             .  .   .-

       Our recommendation of applying the Bane level of Hazard Index
       at 0.25 for carcinogens has generated much discussion to  where
       additional clarification is warranted.  The Department concur*
       with the IBM proposed cleanup plan as vail as the Regional
       Board Tentative Order that the proposed sit* cleanup levels of
       0.25 KCHI and 1.0 CHI will not unreasonably affeet the
       beneficial uses of the groundwater in the B and deeper
       aquifers.  However, for the purpose of »axiaum public health
       protection, we would prefer that the sane factor of eafaty,
       0.25 HI, for non°earcinogenc be applied for carcinogens
       present in the affected aquifer*.  We would like to point out
       two areas of concern in a&king the suggestion of using the
       0.25 CKZ.  Our intent is to further assure that groundwater
       left in the affected aquifers be significantly less than the
       drinking water standards and action l«val«3

       1.   The HCHI and CHI only address the toxic «ffect,s of
            contaminants within their specific non-carcinogenic and
            carcinogenic groups and do not address the hazards when
            chemicals froa each group are stixed together.  There »re
            unknown syr»*Tqi»xic effects relating to mixtures of
            contaminants in drinking water.  We believe that in the
            absence of concrete health effects data, a reasonable
            aargin of safety should be used  for both groups of
            contaminants in prescribing the Hazard Index.

       2.   The Hazard Indices used in the GHZ may increase or
            decrease based on the future setting of drinking vater
            standards and action levels  (Reference source: Site
            Cleanup Requirements, page L,  Item 118).  A 1*^ CHI
            could mean cleanup would be only to the drinking vater

-------
                          IBM MAILING LIST
(1)  State Water Resources Control Board
     P.O. Box 100
     Sacramento, CA 95814
     Attn:  Gil Torres

(2)  USEPA
     215 Fremont St.
     San Francisco, CA 94105
     Attn: Mary Masters

(3)  Department of Health Services
     Toxics Substance Control Division
     2151 Berkeley Way, Annex 7
     Berkeley, CA 94704
     Attn: Howard Hatayama

(4)  Santa Clara County Health Department
     2220 Moorpark Avenue
     San Jose, CA 95128
     Attn: Lee Esguibel

(5)  Santa Clara Valley Water District
     5750 Alnaden Expressway
     San Jose, CA 95118
     Attn: John T. O'Halloran
           Ton Iwamura
           Walt Wadlow

(6)  IBM
     5600 Cottle Road
     San Jo»e, CA 95193
     Attn: Hay Kerby

(7)  Kennedy/Jenks/Cbilton Consulting Engineers
     657 Howard Street
     San Francisco, CA  94105
     Attn:  Thomas Kalinovski

(p)  Harding Lawson Assoc.
     P.O. Box 578                  ,
     Novato, CA 94948
     Attn:  Randy Stone

-------
 Kr.  Steven Ritchie
 Page 2
 September 6,  1988
      standard  for  one  specific chemical, if that vac the only
      chemical  detected.  The Department feels that cleanup
      should be to  levels veil below the drinking water
      standards and, to the maximum extent possible, within
      reasonably technical and economical limits.  This is
      consistent vith ?"*••.t* ««•»••••* »*rmt-.ed Resolution 68-16
      "Statement of Policy with Respect to Maintaining High
      Quality of Waters in California * as well as our Drinking
      Water  Program's goal to assure that the water users are
      provided  with the best quality of water supply available
      at all times.  The drinking water standards and action
      levels should not be used to condone contamination up to      ff
      those  levels.

The Department's recommended 0.25 CHI is a goal to provide for
the margin  of  safety in assuring that downstream water users
are,  to the extent possible, provided with the bast quality of
water available at all times,

ee:   IBK Mailing List
      Retail Hater Agendas

-------
                                       Santa Qoro Volley Water District
DISTRICT BOARD Of DIRECTORS
JOE PANDrr. CHAIRMAN • DISTRICT 1
PATRICK T. FERRRO- DISTRICT 2
RO8£P^ W GODSS • DISTRICT 3
JOE DONOM UE • DISTRICT 4
JAMES .' LfM'MAN-DISTRICT 5
JOE JUDGE, VICE CHAIRMAN-AT tAftGE               57SO AIMADEK EXPRESSWAY
SJG SANCHEZ • AT 1>RGE                         UN JOSE. CALIFOHNIA Kill
                                        TELEPHONE (401) 2C5-2COO
SUSAN A. VINO
CLf RK Of THE BOARD
 August 30.  1988

                                                 CALIFORNIA REGIONAL WATER
                                                       SEP o 9 1988

                                                 QUALITY CONTROL BOARD
 Mr.  Peter V.  Snyder,  Chairman
 Kegional  Water Quality Control Board
 San  Francisco Bay legion
 1111 Jackson  Street,  loom 6000
 Oakland,  California  9460?

 Dear Kr.  Snyder:

 The  Santa  Clara  Valley  Vater District  Board expresses  appreciation  for  the
 legional  Board's lead  rol«  IB over sight  of  the  IBM and  other  groundvater
 pollution cases  la our  arts.  Ve also  want  to thatLt the legional  Board for
 coordinating  the  special workshop  and  hearing in  Santa Clara  County on IBM's
 proposed  final cleanup plan.

 Upon careful  reviev,  the  District  Board has adoptad a lesolution which  outlines
 the  District's  consents  and  recommendations OB  tht proposed Tentative Orders
 to IBM for site cleanup and KFDZS permit.  V* transmit a copy herewith.

The  District  is  deeply concerned "with  and  actively  involved  ift vrotecting the'
integrity of   the groundwater in  Santa  Clara  County.   The froundviter basins
represent  aa  la^ortaat watar  resource  which anst be  preserved.  While  complete
cleanup   of  the,   existiag IBM eontssdnatioa  to-  Boa-detectable  levels  is   a
desirable goal,  the  District recognizes that  this  is technically  infeasible.
The  District  also recognises  the  need  to strike a  balance between pumping for
groundwatcr  cleanup  to  protect public  health  and  the  need  to  conserve the
extracted water as a  valuable  resource.

With  this balance in mind,  the  District  supports  the  proposed  cleanup  plsn
 (Alternative  6) with  the amendments suggested  by the  Regional Board staff and
by our District Besolution.

Two  of  the most  critical iaaues  to  the District  are  the level of  protection
from  further   degradation  afforded legion  IX  (the undefined region)  north  of
Idenvale  Gap  and the  and use  of  the  extracted  waters.   It is the  District's

-------
 Mr. Peter V.  Sny      :hairman          -2-                      August 30, 1988
 understanding  that  last  contaminant  levels  similar  to  those  that would  be
 expected  to occur under the proposed plan moved through the Edenvale Gap without
 producing elevated  contamination levels In wells located in Region 11.

 Our suggestion that  the  Regional  Board strengthen the  proposed  plan as stated
 in the Resolution includes • request that IBM be required to increase the water
 reuse  goal to 100X.   The District will assist IBM in developing reuse markets
 with an  option  for District credit or  refund for vater  that  the District can
 accept and use  vithin   system  operational  constraints.   Additionally,  the
 District  will develop  a marketing  strategy which prioritites  nonpotable reuse
 of the water  followed  by direct  reuse  or recharge  into District  facilities.
 The District vlll  also  seek (rant monies  that  could  be used  to enhance the
 quantity  of vater that  could be reused and requests your  aupport in encouraging
 the State Vater Resources Control  Board to  broadly define any auch  monies  that
 could  be  made available-

 The District looks forward  to continued  cooperation with  the Regional  Board
 in resolving the  difficult issues  associated with implementing  an appropriate
 cleanup  plan for IBM.   to  further this  and.   tee  District  will continue  to
 coordinate  the  Santa Taraaa  Subbasin Management  Committee to provide input  to
 IBM and the Regional Board on issues associated with cleanups in  the aabbasln.

 Ve suggest that  IBM'a  proposed remedial -action  plan,  modified  toy  the  Regional
 Board   staff*   aaendmeata  la  the   draft  order  aad  incorporating   our
 recommendations,  vlll represent ao  appropriate application of the State's policy
 oa  Maintaining   High  Quality of  Maters  IB  California   (SVRCB '. Resolution
 So. 6B-16)o
Joe Tandit. Chairman
Board of Directors

Attachment

be:  SCWD - Board of Directors (8/30/88 S4«n
-------
     San Jo»»
     37< WBS: Sanu CJtn St                        SfP n ft
     P.OBo«229                             Wtr09
     San Jose CA 85196
     4O6 279-7606
                         September 9, 1988
Mr.  Peter W.  Snyder, Chairman
Regional Water  Quality Control Board
San  Francisco Bay Region
1111 Jackson  Street, Room 6000
Oakland, CA  94607

RE:   IBM Remedial Action Plan and Tentative Order for Site          *?
      Cleanup.

Dear Mr. Snyder:

      The San  Jose Water Company appreciates the continuing
efforts  of  your board and staff to oversee the final remedial
action plan for the IBM groundwater contamination case.  We also
appreciate  the  public hearing and workshop held in San Jose for
the  purpose of  informing and soliciting conments from the South
Bay  Community.  This letter summarizes San Jose water Company's
comments on the proposed order for site cleanup.

      Although there are many complex issues to be considered in
the  final remedial action plan, the overriding concerns of the
water company are to 1) protect the Santa Clara and Santa Teresa
Groundwater Basins as high quality sources of domestic water
supply and  2) conserve the area's available water resources.  The
key  issues  to be  considered are thus the groundwatex cleanup
goals and the conservation of pumped water used to acMeve those    *  •
goals.

Groundwater Cleanup Goals                                     -

      We  are generally in agreement with your staff's
recommendation  to pursue cleanup in accordance with alternative €
(aquifer restoration to specific cleanup goals with pumping
contingencies for responding to changing groundwater  levels).  *t
is our understanding that varying levels of groundwater in the
Santa Teresa  Basin will affect cleanup operations and that the
most  efficient  and timely cleanup can be achieved by  the careful
management  of pumping activities in response to  available
groundwater supplies.

      Regarding  the specific cleanup goals, we agree that cleanup
in the B and  deeper aquifers should proceed to the recommended
0.25  hazard index for non-carcinogens  (NCHI).  However, we concur

-------
 with the Department of Health Services, Public Water Supply
 Branch that the same level of hazard index should be applied to
 carcinogens.  Therefore, we recommend that the cleanup goal for
 carcinogens be a hazard index of 0.25 rather than 1.0 as proposed
 by your staff.  This would assure that drinking water standards
 can be achieved in the Sa*.wa Teresa Basin with some margin for
 error.  Recognizing that "rero level" cleanup goals are
 impossible to attain, this approach is both reasonable and
 protective of the beneficial uses of these aquifers.

      Although we agree with the general approach to cleanup in
 the Santa Teresa Basin, we strongly auppuit further requirements
 for extraction, monitoring and water quality goals at the
 Edenvale Gap.  Such requirements would provide a mechanism to
 better evaluate cleanup performance in terms of containment
 within the Santa Teresa Basin and protection of the Santa Clara
 Basin.

      As you know, the existing cleanup order limits to 10 parts
 per billion (ppb) the concentrations of the principal
 contaminants, TCA and Freon 113, that may be present in
 groundwater at the Edenvale Gap.  The proposed order abolishes
 these limits in favor of the 0.25 NCHZ in B and deeper aquifers.
 Since TCA is the primary component of the 0.25 NCBX calculation,
 it is reasonable to conclude that as a result of the new order up
 to 50 parts per billion TCA would be allowed to persist  in the
 deeper aquifers of the Santa Teresa Bacia.

      In proposing the order, the Regional Board Staff concluded
 that the 0,25 KCHI cleanup goal weu'IS not result in degradation
 of groundwater in the Santa Clara Basin.  This is  based  on .the
 assumption that as groundwater flows toward the Edenvale Gap,
 there will be sufficient dilution to reduce levels of TCA from
 the maximum 50 ppb to 30 ppb or less. IBM has estimated that 30
 ppb is the highest concentration of TCA ever passing through the
 gap, and that the 1 to 3 ppb TCA and Freon 213 observed in the
 affected Santa Clara Basin veils (five owned by tbe San Jose
 Water Company) axe a result of this occurrence.  They therefore
-conclude that levels of contamination will not Increase in San
 Jose Water Company wells.  While this logic is reasonable,  it is
•our position that there must be adequate groundwater monitoring
 and specific water quality goals at the gap to demonstrate this
 level of containment.  An appropriate goal would be something
 less than 30 ppb TCA, which if exceeded would trigger additional
 extraction of groundwater at the gap or other appropriate
 remedial action.

      Monitoring at the gap should include samples frogat least
 one continuously operated extraction well (such am ORBC3) in
 addition to the proposed aquifer-specific monitoring wells.  The
 extraction well is capable of campling a greater area within the
 gap and could be used to demonstrate ongoing compliance with "at-
 the-gap" water quality goals.  Pumping rates in the range of 350
 gpm (0.5 MOD) would probably be sufficient to achieve the desired

-------
Stct* V Caltfwnic                                                  TK« lM«wrtM Agency

Amorandum


T<>  • Mr.  Steven  Ritchie                          Do*: September 7,  1988
s  .   Executive Officer
     Regional Water  Quality
       Control Board,  Region  II
     1111  Jackson  Street,  Room  6000                  CALIFORNIA ReA'CttAI
     Oakland, CA  94607

                                                          SEP os 1988
From i  Department *f F»h «nd Oonw

                                                     QUALITY CONTROL BOARD

&/t>tect: Santa  Teresa  Groundwater Basin Cleanup Program

     Pairchild Seai  Conductor Corporation  (Pairehild) and
     International Business  Machines  (IBM) have been engaged  in a
     remedial cleanup program for the Santa Teresa Ground water Basin.
     As part of  this  cleanup program, both Pairchild and IBM  have
     pumped large  quantities of groundwater with discharge  to Canoas
     Creek, tributary to Guadalupe River.  Due to  increased flows  to
     the Guadalupe River resulting from  this  discharge, instream
     habitat conditions have significantly improved and approximate
     historic levels.                                                .

     ft*ch year since  1986, Chinook salmon  and steelhead trout spawning
     has been documented in  the Guadalupe  River.   In  1987,  247
     spawning redds were observed.  All  but three  of  these  were found
     below  the Canoas Creek  confluence.

     It is  the position of our  department  that the discharge of
     treated groundwater. results in a beneficial use  by supporting an
     anadromous  fishery in the  Cuadalupe River.  In addition, this
     discharge provides freshwater inflows to Guadalupe  Slough which
     are essential to maintenance of  rearing  habitat  for  aany
     estuarine fish species.

     Upon request, further documentation can  be  provided  which
     demonstrates  the beneficial use  of  this  treated ground water
     discharge for fish end  wildlife resources.          .

     Please contact Michael  Rugg, Associate Water  Quality Biologist,
     at (707) 944-5521? or Linda Olmer,  Fishery  Biologist* at (408)
     458-0904.
                                   Brian Hunter
                                   Regional Manager
                                   Region 3
     ccs  Belinda Allen
          RWQCB - Oakland

          Ray Kerby
          International  Business Machines

-------
                                RESOLUTION NO. 68- 69

             ADOPTING P    :ON  REGARDING PROPOSED REMEDIAL  ACTION PLAN


      RESOLVED by  th  ioard of  Directors  of Santa Clara  Valley  Water District
 that the position  of  this Board regarding  the  Renedial Action Plan Proposed by
 International Business Mach_..es is, and shall  be  reported to the San  Prancisco
 Bay Regional Vater Quality Control Board, as follows:

 Proposed Plan
      Support Alternative  6 as  amended by Regional Board .staff.
      Support 0.25 RCHI  and  1.0  CHI  in  Region  1.   unless health  authorities
      determine  that more  stringent levels are necessary.

 Additions to Proposed  Plan
      Request that  Regional Board:
         - Require  adequate monitoring  at Cdenvale Gap and  continued  extraction
          of groundvster  at or in the vicinity  of  ORBC-3  as necessary to prevent
          further  degradation of water quality ia the regioa  downgradient from j
          the Sap.
         • Increase reuse  goal  to iDOX.

 Position on  Reuse  Alternatives
      District wills                                           	
         - Encourage maximum reuse of  extracted  watera  by  assisting in development
          of reuse  markets with the  option for  District credit or  refund for
          that  water the  District  can accept  and  mse within system operational
          .constraints.
         - Adopt a  marketing strategy emphasising a  priority  efs
               1.   landscaping,  construction water  and  other nonnotable uses.
               2.   Direct  reuse  or   recharge  into  District   facilities  of
                    adequately  monitored water meeting treatment goals as defined
                    ia  Regional Board draft cleanup  order.                        .'
        • Continue coordination  of Santa Teress Subbasin management committee»
        - Seek grants  to  enhance reuse.

     PASSED  AND ADOPTED  by the Board  of Directors of Santa Clara Valley Vater
District  this 30th day of  August. IWft, by xae  following  votes

AYES:     Directors  i.iunmL ». 1.fguao i. m umn LM&

WOES:     Directors  *.*.Cress,  J.Pandit

ABSENT:   Directors  Bone


                                        SANTA CLARA VALLEY-HATE* DISTRICT
                                           Chairmatr oi the ftoaro^ot Directors
ATTEST:  OT&AH A. PIN6

-------
 monitoring.   It  is our understanding that this water could be
 conserved  by  providing sufficient treatment  to make it suitable
 for  recharge  or  direct use as domestic water supply.  The San
 Jose Water Company would cooperate with the  Regional Board and
 Department of Health Services to assure that water meeting all
 applicable health standards is put to additional beneficial use.

 Conservation  of  Extracted Groundwater

      As stated in our letter to Mr. Ritchie, dated July  13, 1988,
 it is the  position of the San Jose Water Company that pumped
 grocu.dwater from tl.a I3M cl^^up should be treated as necessary
 and  put to additional beneficial use.  This  should be •
 accomplished  to  the maximum extent feasible  consistent with the
 appropriate public health standards and water quality criteria
 for  the intended use.  With this in mind, we recommend that the
 Board reo^iire IBM to increase the re -use goal from 50 percent to
 100  percent of the extracted groundwater.
          extracted water is potentially useable for either
 recycling (reinjection into the aquifer), groundwater recharge,
 direct use or non-potable uses.  To minimize the costs associated
 with treating and transporting this water, IBM should maximize
 non-potable use at it's own site.  Additionally, we support the
 proposed order to require IBM to conduct a pilot study and
 prepare a proposal for full-scale reinjection of treated
 groundwater.  It is our understanding that such recycling of
 extraction water may result in more efficient and timely cleanup
 and would lessen the impact of IBM's pumping on groundwater
 levels in, the Santa Teresa Basin.

      Treated water of a very high quality (less than 1 ppb total
 VOCs) can be obtained by air-stripping or granular activated
 carbon (GAC) treatment.  Such water will surpass drinking water
 standards by a vide margin and could be made available for
 recycling, recharge or direct use for domestic supply.  Although
 the treatment and conveyance of oil-site extraction water may be
 subject to siting constraints, IBM should be required to provide
'the appropriate facilities vhererer recharge or direct use is
 feasible.  This includes construction of treatment facilities to
 be turned over to and operated by water purveyors or the Santa
 Clara Valley Water District.

      A final consnent on the issue of re-use is that adequate
 monitoring and quality assurance must be provided to demonstrate
 the performance of water treatment for the various re-use
 options.   San Jose Water Company's position on re-use is based on
 the quality of water achievable as reported by IBM.  Although
 treatment facilities may be turned over to the Water XftStriot or
 a water purveyor for operation and maintenance, construction and
 testing of facilities should be performed by IBM under  the
 supervision of the Regional Board and Department of Health
 Services.

-------
      In concluding, it cannot be overemphasized that the Santa
 Clara Groundwater Basin is a vital source of supply for the San
 Joso  water  Company and the 740,000 people we serve.  This
 resource should be protected against contamination to the maximum
 extent possible within reasonably technical and economic limits.
 We  therefore request that you strengthen the proposed order for
 site  cleanup by adopting specific cleanup goals and requiring
 additional  extraction and monitoring at the Edenvale Gap.  We are
 prepared to work with your staff and the Santa Clara Valley Water
 District to assure that this and other extraction water is put to
 additional  beneficial use, including recharge or direct use where
 it  is  feasible and appropriate.

     The San Jose Water Company would be pleased to meet with you
 or  your  staff to discuss these recommendations.  Thank you for
 the opportunity to comment on this important proceeding.

                         Very truly yours.
                         R. Scot* Yoo
                         Water Quality Manager
RSY:mh
co:  State Dept. of Health Services
     Santa Clara Valley Water District

-------
 Responsi  ness Summary
 SUMMA  f OF COMMZNTTS AND STAFF RESPONSES


 q. IBM i  .uld have the option of •oaltoriBg oil a*d grc*M Umlutioai as cither oil aad greue
 or tout i  ;anic car boo.

 Response     Staff concur* and has modified the orders.

 r. IBM t   uld act  be held accountable for effluent limitations that  are beyond Its control due
 to the ai   ral environment.

 Responsi      Staff concurs and  routinely takes  these kinds of factors into consideration when
              evaluating monitoring data, provided it can be positively shown what the natural
              conditions are. If IBM and staff differ in interpreting  this, it can be decided in a
              public hearing before the Board. No change is therefore necessary in this order.

 i. The 4  ig/1 effluent limits for TCA aid Freoa are too low for aa  lasUntaaeoas maximum.

 Retpont<      After further review of the technical data submitted, staff concurs and has raised
              the instantaneous maximum to 60  ug/1 and added a quarterly average limit of 40
              ug/1 in the Tentative NPDES Order.

 t. IBM r  uests clarification of the flow through 96 hour bloassay.

 Responu  •    Staff will gladly work with IBM when it becomes necessary to install the bioassay
              monitoring equipment. The self monitoring program has been modified to require
              this test only at the on-site discharge point

 •. Recel   ig water limitations should tale Into account •pitreana water quality.

 Responsi  -    See Response 9j.                              .

 v. Chan i  criteria OB which aa Increase In umple collectloa and analysis is based,

 Respons   -    Staff concurs with using a running annual average for hazard indices but also
              believes specific concentration limits for certain chemicals should be retained.

 w. Rerii   language regarding monitoring plan rcrtsloat and recamptioa of regular monitoring.

 Respoai   -    Staff con cars  with these suggestions and has incorporated them into the
              monitoring program, with one additional modification to limit resumption of
              regular monitoring only if the ground water is in compliance with the SCR.
KEY Cl  VNGES TN THE CLEANUP PLAN AS A RESULT OF COMMENTS

1.       Jditional limits for the chemicals of concern, i.e. TCA. Freon and DCE, have been
         ded i or ground water passing through the Edenvale Gap.

2.       ae re-se goal has been raised from 50 to 100%.

3. ~'"     requirement foi . continuously pumping monitoring well at the Edetxwfe gap has been
         Ided. Reuse of groundwater from this well has been given the highest priority.
9/30/81                                    -13-

-------
 Responsiveness Summary
 SUMMARY OF COMMENTS AND STAFF RESPONSES


               obtain the permit. Should administrative matter* delay the cleanup we will  take
               appropriate actions to assure timely compliance.

 I. Suggest removal of the proposed  prohibition la the SCR.

 Response -    These prohibitions are standard wording and are applicable to this cleanup. With
               regard to the claim that these prohibitions contain vague phrases, if in the future
               staff should determine  that  a  violation  has occurred and recommends
               enforcement to the  Board, the Board in a public hearing would  consider all
               relevant  facts from the staff, public and IBM to decide whether a violation had
               occurred and the consequences as they apply to the particular ease  before it  In
               addition, day-to-day guidance  from staff ha* been and remains available.

 j. Chemical concentrations ased la the Hazard  ladex calcalatloa shoald be  nnnlng aaaaal
 arerages calculated quarterly.

 Response -    Staff concurs that this is an appropriate means to determine compliance with the
               cleanup plan.

 k. Remove goal of SOS nose of gronadwater.

 Response -    See Response 3jL

 1. Add specification  that acknowledges the possible Impact oa  grouadwater levels of asers other
 than IBM.                                                                                   •

 Response -   This appears to be a reasonable request and it has been added.

 so. Change task submlftal dates.

 Response -   The task compliance submittal  dates have been modified pursuant to this request

 a. Delete Provision 13, It Is covered by Water Code Section 13271.

 Response -   This  provision is standard language contained in all cleanup orders and is
              intended to implement Section 13271 on a site specific basis.

 o. The flow rate llnltatloa for Waste 003 shonld  be revfstd frosa 1.9 to 2.5 MGD.                   i
              to be reused. Therefore  reducing the allowable discharge after treatment works
              are. in place is consistent with the overall goaJ of both the Regional and State
              Boards. Therefore, staff does not believe this request is appropriate.

p. Revise Finding 6 regarding Waste 005 to remove restrictions oa disposal of frondwater from
A aquifer on case by case basis.                                                   .

Response •    Since the A aquifer has the highest concei "rations of chemicals, ttaff believes the
              restrictions contained in the SCR should remain.
9/30/88                         .           -12-

-------
  Responsiveness Summary
  SUMMARY OF COMMENTS AND STAFF RESPONSES


               provision for quarterly monitoring reports appears  to be out of place in this
               section of the comments. Since this is standard language for cleanup orders surf
               does not believe it should be deleted in this case.

  b. Urge Board to «se Content (rather than ••(lateral) Order format to address  Issues which
  may need to be reopened.

 Response -    Board  orders are adopted, and modified, in public hearings where the discharger,
               Board  members and staff, and other interested parties all have the opportunity to
               have input into the process. Therefore, we do not view Board orders as being
               unilateral. Additionally, ta appeal process is available under State law.

 c. IBM does not concede that the Regional Board  has JBrisdlctioaal  power to Issue the proposed
 order.

 Response •   The staff position, which the Board has supported on numerous occasions, is that
               the issuance of Site Cleanup Requirements is the appropriate means of dealing
              with cleanups  under the Water Code.

 4. IBM does »ot concede that Its activities have created a condition or threat of pollution, or a
 ilgnlficant threat to the environment.

 Respoose -    The Board in prior orders has previously found that there is ample evidence  that
              the discharge of chemicals at and from  the IBM  site  has, and  threatens to,
              adversely impact the real and potential beneficial uses of f roundwater. Therefore,
              pollution and a threat to pollute do  exist

 e. Indicate  that there are other possible soarces for chemicals la the area beyond Edeavale
 Gap.

 Response -    Staff agrees that there may  be other, as yet un^entified sources beyond the Gap.
              However, we also believe that there  is sufficient evidence  that IBM has
              contributed to the chemicals found  in this area.

 f. Clarification that the Regional Board will matinee to r*fulat* the IBM cleanup, whether or
 •ot it Is a CERCLA site.

 Response -    It is the Board's intent, as stated in  the SCR, to do just that

I. Soil rcmedlatfM joab abe«U he 1M  times the  •pfBcabfe DBS tMaJJa* water standard.

 Response •    see Response 6jt.                               _
h. IBM aotes that CERCLA Sectioa 121(e) appears to provide an exemption from compliance
with CEQA aad other permitting rales.

Response -    Staff concurs that CERCLA does allow for exemption from the administrative
              aspects,  but sot the substantive aspects, of obtaining permits for on-site
              activities. We have chosen not to use this section of CERCLA for CEQA, and
              instead we are using an exemption that already exists under stsje. law. In other
              cases, such as a  permit from ths BAAQMD, we believe the best way  to assure
              compliance with  the substantive portions of the permit requirements is to actually


9/30/88                                    -II-

-------
 Responsiveness Summary
 SUMMARY OF COMMENTS AND STAFF RESPONSES
 j. Was land subsidence addressed IB the plan?

 Response -   It was addressed in the remediation plan and found not to be expected.

 k. Who U  responsible if subsidence does occur?

 Response -   Subsidence is not expected. However, if it should occur, we believe the matter
              may have to  be decided by the courts after determining who caused it and what
              damages occurred because of it

 1. Strike the enforcement paragraph la (be Flaa, It has IBM policing lt*lf.

 Response -   Self monitoring has been, and is, the standard practice for inuring compliance
              with all Regional Board orders. With routine and spot checking by Board staff,
              we have found this  to  be a satisfactory, useful, and efficient method of
              determining compliance with all the orders issued by the Board.

 I. Board should  require IBM to brlag IB urface water to Inject at the property Uae la order to
 contain the pollutants on their property.

 Response -   Staff believes that in the long run it b better to remote the pollutants from the
              groundwater  rather than  attempt to contain them.  Also, pollutants have already
              migrated beyond the properly boundary.

                                    IBM COMMENTS

 8. EDITORIAL COMMEJfTS                                                   :         •

 Editorial comments (ej. typographical errors, clarifications, tic.) have been incorporated into the
 cleanup plan and orders in those eases where the intent of the cleanup plan has not been changed.
 Any changes that impact the actual cleanup program are described below.      ...  •  •

 9. NON-EDTTORIAL COMMENTS

 a. Grounds for reoptnlag the rcsnedlatioa flu for hither Board rtrlew or actba teed better
 definition.

 Response -   Staff accepts, with modification, IBM's proposal for a general policy statement
              retarding fvtwre changes to the cJetvop plan. This will be iacfoded IB the SCR ts
              • finding. The staff jnodificatkm to tht proposed language is to  clarify that any
              changes would be based cm either newly discovered site  conditions or other
              information not available to the Board at the time of adoption of the remediation
              plan.                                                              :

              Staff does not believe that the other changes  proposed by DM to go along with
              the above policy statement are appropriate. Some suggested specific deletions of
              grounds for  modifying the remediation  plan in contrary to the 'other
              information*  portion of the policy statement.  Also, requiring that changes in the
              monitoring program, technical evaluations, or  periodic Board r*nir • be  limited to
              conditions listed in the policy statement  is too restrictive of the Board's
              responsibility to  protect water quality. Finally, the request for deletion of the


9/30/88                                    -10-

-------
  Responsiveness Summary
  SUMMARY OF COMMENTS AND STAFF RESPONSES
 c. If Technical  Assistance Grants are lot available, IBM tbould be encouraged to put np an
 equivalent amount of aaoney.

 Response -    This would have to be negotiated between IBM and community groups. The
               Board has no authority  to require this.

 d. There are BO  precis* recharge capacity estimates.

 Response -    The remediation plan calls for submitting detailed groundwater reinjection plans
               by January 1990. These plans should include these estimates.

 e. The Board  should lirestigate ways to limit paperwork associated with developing cleanup
 plans.

 Response -    The Board staff attempts to limit the paperwork as much as is allowed under the
               various  state and federal laws «•; -a it is required to enforce. Utilizing one
               report to satisfy the three regulatory agencies is one method the Board has chosen
               to reduce paperwork. Submittal of complete reports by dischargers would help
               eliminate much of the correspondence involved in developing Acceptable cleanup
               plans.

 f o There should be snore leadership aid less averaging of •pinions In deciding critical Issues.

 Response -    When deciding critical issues  it is important that all  opinions be heard tnd
               considered. We  believe  the Board is taking an active leadership role  in this issue
               given the legal constraints imposed upon  it

 g. Board sho«U  develop more  and  better public education Baterialf, particularly with regard to
 public safety and risk.

 Response •    The Board is doing  what it can given the limited resources la this area. We nave
               issued, and plan to continue doing so. public fact sheets on Regional Board lead
               CERCLA sites as final cleanup plans are  developed and considered for adoption.

 h. How long »til treatment systtau are b«llt and In •pcrmttm?

 lespoase •    The schedule contained in the remediation plan and SCR ic   . -

               Of/silt:
               treatment design - January 1989
               treatment operational -  August 1989

               Onsite:
               treatment preliminary design -March 1989
               treatment final design - October 1989
               treatment operational -  June 1991

I. To what degree was Plan f Mthored by DM?

Response •     Plan 6. "the remediation plan', was originally drafted by DM. However, the final
               plan has been modified by Board staff.


9/30/88                                     .9.

-------
 Responsiveness Summary
 SUMMARY OF COMMENTS AND STAFF RESPONSES
 6. SOIL CLEANUP

 a. Steam Injection will work with vapor recovery.

 Response -   The  remediation plan did evaluate several methods of soil remediation, including
              steam injection  and bioremediation. The plan concluded they were technically not
              applicable to this site (e.g. heat treatment with steam injection, since it is an
              unproven  technology) or that they were of limited applicability (e.g.
              bioremediation). Soil  remediation techniques which  were chosen include  soil
              removal, which  has already been accomplished, and vapor extraction.

              Detailed plans, btsed  on  current  pilot studir*. for  toil cleanup by vapor
              extraction are due under this n mediation plan by January, 1989. If tne current
              proposal proves unable to reach  soil cleanup goals,  then additional technologies
              will have to  be  investigated.

 b. How Is the toll going to be  cleaned sip?

 Response -    23,000  cubic yards of contaminated toil have already  been removed from the
              areas with the highest  concentrations of chemicals. For the remaining  soils which
              contain chemicals above the cleanup goals, the remediation plan calls for toil
              vapor extraction wells  to be installed.

 c. Have alternative toll cleanup methods, neb as tteaai injection, keen eralnated?

 Response -    See Response 6a.

 d. Can bio-remediation be used to enhance toll  cleanip?

 Response -    See Response 6.a.

 e. The toll cleanup  goals should be 100 tiaies the applicable drinking water itaadard.

 Response -    The  proposed goal may not be  adequate to protect  drinking water resources,
              depending on the nature of  the interactions between  the chemicals and the toil.
              Therefore the SCR contain a more conservative limit  of 1 ppm. but  allows IBM
              to request a higher number if it can prove ao  adverse impacts on the
              troundwaier (e.g. lack of mobility of the chemicals in  the soil).

 7. MISCELLANEOUS

 a. Proper monitoring should be perforated.

 Response •    Both the SCR and the  NPDES  Permit (for surface water  discharge) contain
              extensive monitoring programs, in addition, Board staff will be d' 'ng periodic
              compliance inspections throughout the cleanup process.  Aho see l.b.

 b. IBM should renaia a proposed CERCLA site.
  m, •

 Response -    Board staff agrees with this position and has ao informed the EPA. However, the
              final decision rests with  EPA.
9/30/88                                    -I-

-------
 Responsiveness Summary
 SUMMARY OF COMMENTS AND STAFF RESPONSES


 c. How soon will you evaluate the effectiveaeu of the scrubbers?

 Response -    The BAAQMD requires that any air pollution control equipment go through their
               permitting process prior to being built. Therefore the scrubbers will be evaluated
               prior to  being installed or operated.

 f. What problem would there be  !• putting the scrubbers en the air striken before  the air
 strippers are up?

 Response -    Technically this would not be a problem. However, see  Response 4.a. regarding
               whether  it is necessary.

 g. Will T*p— r»??T»ry  go OB  20 yean or beyond If 1 ppm If not Met,  or will  It continue only
 •Dtll recovery levels off?

 Response •    Vapor recovery will continue as long AS it is effective in r-moving chemicals
               from the soil and until either the cleanup goals are met or :.. .creative goals are
              set by the Board based on threat to water quality (see Response 6.e.).

 S. COST

 «. Cost relative to hazard Index aad aaouat of water should  be published.

 Response -   This  information is in  the administrative record which is available for public
              review.

 b. Multiple bureaucracies cause delay aa>d Increase costs.

 Response -   Regional Board staff, acting as  the lead  agency in this ease, has attempted-to do
              what it couJd to expedite this cleanup process. However, other agencies, local,
              state, and federal, all must make sure that their own laws, regulations, and
              requirements are complied with, and this does sometimes cause delays.

 c. IBM should spend whatever It takes to restore the froundwater.

 Response -   Stare  law and policy requires cleanup actions to be reasonable, and one aspect of
              reasonableness is cost. Abo, one of the criteria under CERCLA for choosing a
              final  cleanup plan is cost. Based on these state and federal requirements, costs are
              considered when choosing a final plan.

 d. Board should focus  on what It besl for pcblic health  and the environment, lot on what a
 company'can afford.

 Response -   The remediation plan will protect public health, based on known standards, and
              can be changed if the health  standards change. The cleanup goals include a
              significant safety factor. Costs were considered  when deciding  cleanup goals
              beyond those needed to protect  human health. Also, aee Response 3x.

e.  Is IBM paying for all the water they are  pumping out of the ground?

Response -    IBM  is  paying the Santa Clara Valley Water District for all extracted
              froundwater.


9/30/88      ,                               -7-

-------
 Responsiveness Summary
 SUMMARY OF COMMENTS AND STAFF RESPONSES


              measures when groundwater levels are falling, which is what happens during
              drought conditions.

 q. It there »ny intent to force the SCVWD to blend reused water Into existing water systems?

 Response -    See Response 3J.
                     •-?;•.
 r. What objection does the SCVWD have to discharging treated gronadwater into their
 percolation ponds?

 Response -    District staff did note certain  management and technical difficulties with the
              proposal to discharge to the percolation ponds, however there is no formal
              objection from the District at »»•« time if the ground^-ater b sufficiently treated.
              The primary obstacle to this proposal are the costs of treating and transporting
              the groundwater.

 a. How Bach of the system for piping treated  grouadwater to Markets la IBM going to pay?

 Response •    See Response 3.c. Also, these matters would  have to agreed to between IBM and      f,
              the user of the water.

 4. AIR EMISSIONS

 a. Should require air scrubbers.

 Response -    For questions on whether air acnibben, or  any other method of air pollution
              control equipment, will be needed, Regional Board staff will be relying on the
              Bay Area Air Quality Management District's (BAAQMD)  permit program  to
              assure  protection of public health and the environment. This cleanup plan
              requires IBM to obtain the proper permits from the BAAQMD. In addition, the
              cleanup proposal did address the potential   *:alth impacts of air emissions from
              groundwater treatment units  and found them to be  insignificant. Also see
              Response 2.b.

 b. Don't allow Freoa tmluloas lato the air (to protect ezoae layer)

 Response -    Set Response 4.a,                                                                .
                                                                                              »
 e. What happens to Material that is volatlltee* when tttatiaf water? b It relea*«d to the
atmosphere?

 Response -.    Any treatment using air stripping, a* b proposed in this case, will release
              chemicals to the air unless further treatment is required. As noted in 4.a. above
              we are relying on the BAAQMD to decide whether further treatment is needed.

 d. Do you add together all  nearby sources of air foliation whea determining what standards an
 appropriate to meet?

 Response -    BAAQMD procedures do take this into consideration.
9/30/8S

-------
  Responsiveness Summary
  SUMMARY OF COMMENTS AND STAFF RESPONSES


  i. Treated groundwater should »ot be bleadtd la to existing water supplies.

  Response -   As long is the water is sufficiently treated to meet the  concerns of the
               Department of Health Services, which regulates water supply systems, and the
               water  purveyors, the Regional Board has no objections  to  blending treated
               groundwater into  water supplies. Also see Response 3 v

  J. Don't put any inclean water Into the ••dergrooad basin.

  Response -   The remediation plan calls for treating any recharged  groundwater to an average
               of less than  1 ppb. Current technology does not allow  for  any stricter
            .   requirements.

  k. Stop discharging water to  Caaoas Creek.

  Response -   Prior to complete reuse of extracted groundwater. discharge  to surface water is
               the most reasonable option available. The NPDES permit to be adopted as part of
               this remediation plan is designed  to assure protection of the beneficial uses of
               Caapas Creek. At this time, based on several yean of existing data, there is no
               indication that there would be any adverse impacts if  this portion of the cleanup
               plan is complied with. Also, note comment 3J. below.

 1. Discharge of treated ground water to Caaoas Creek Is beneficial because It supports fish la
 the Guadalupe River.

 Response •    This comment is  from the Department of Fish and Game. We concur with it,
               however, any final decisions-will have to consider a balance between maintaining
               fish habitat created: by .the discharge of extracted'.groundwater cleanup,  reuse,
               and conservation.

 •a. Does the plaa aay  that untreated grouadwater will be pumped  late Caaoas Creek?

 Response •    In order to continue the gronndwater cleanup, the current practice of discharging
               untreated groundwater to Canoas  Creek will continue until treatment units are
               built and operated pursuant to the cleanup plan. This current and past discharge
               appears not to  have created problems, sec  comment 3J.

 •. Look lato a more structured relajectioa program.                      :

 Rfspoai* -   The remediation plan currently calls for a reinjection  program on-site. Details of
               this program  are due to be submitted in January 1990. When reviewing the
              detailed program this comment will be considered.

 o. Is IBM going to continue to reuse water to Irrigate trees that bear crops which are sold?

 Response -   The remediation plan does call for continued irrigation of fruit trees on IBM's
              property.


 a. Have drought conditions beea takea lato account?                        ~™"~

-Response •   Contingency 2 of the Remedial Action Plan specifically addresses cleanup


 9/30/SS     '                              -5-

-------
  Responsiveness Summary
  SUMMARY OF COMMENTS AND STAFF R£SPONSES
 3. CROUNDU'ATTR
 a. Increase reuse to IOCS.

 Response -    The SCR have been amended to increase the reuse goal from 50 to 100%.

 b. Reuse should b« naximlted oa aad off site.

 Response -    see Response 3 .a.

 c. Consider growing hay oa aearby Uad aad irrigatiag with rcclalaied extracted groaadwater.

 Respoose -    The Regional Board does not have the authority to specify how groundwater is to
               be  reused. A specific proposal from IBM regarding reuse  is required oy
               December IS. 1988 as a SCR task. The Regional Board staff will review and
               approve this proposal  and then forward it to the State Board for their review, as
               required by State Board Resolution 88-88. This proposal will also be available for
               public review at the  Regional Board office and at the Santa Teresa Library.
               Implementation of the plan most likely will require further Board action to adopt
               reclamation requirements.

 d. IBM  should be  required to coat tract aad test appropriate facilities wberercr recharge or
 direct reuse Is  feasible.

 Response -    Specific proposals for ground water treatment and reuse must be submitted to the
               staff and Board for approval prior to implementation. Also, aee Response 3.c.

 e. Market treated groaadwater.

 Response -    See Response 3x.

 f.. Chemicals should Bot be allowed to eater Great Oaks Water  Company (COWC) aapply wells
 doe to recharge.

 Response -    Staff will review any proposals  for recharge to reasonably assure that water
               supply  wells and beneficial uses  will aot  be adversely impacted. A significant
               factor in this concern which is beyond the control of IBM and the Regional
               Board is the rate aad duration of pumping by the local water wen, including
               COWC, which potentially could draw pollutants from the IBM site to their wells
               •wgardka «f what is doae at the aite.

 g. Plume movement should not be allowed taring recharge.

, Response •    The cleanup plan requires that during remediation the plume of chemicals, as
               defined by the 0.25 HI, not expand.

 h. Avoid BSC of recharge ponds Bales* a severe drought exists.

 Response -    See Response 3.C.                                           — •-
 9/30/88

-------
  Responsiveness Summary
  SUMMARY OF COMMENTS AND STAFF RESPONSES
  h. Cleanup should be to ion-detectable levels !• order to comply with the Noi-degradatlon
  Policy.

  Response -   The Non-degradation Policy requires reasonable cleanup. Staff does not  believe
               that cleanup  to non-detectable  levels can be justified as reasonab^ given
               technical and economic constraints and the need to conserve groundwater.

  I. Cost should tot b« considered when establishing cleanup levels.

  Response -   Cost is only  one consideration, others include beneficial uses, technical
               feasibility, drinking  water standards, and the need to conserve groundwater. In
               addition,  under CERCLA costs mu*t be Cvnside.eu wLwu «>»1»«UU» twinedial
               action plans.

  J. Support the Hazard ladex  approach to aettiag cleaanp levels.

  Response -   aoae

  k. Recommead establishiag a carcinogenic Hazard ladex goal of 0.25.

  Response -   The Remedial Action Plan's Hazard  Index (HI) goals  are  DOW 0.25 for non-
               carcinogens and 1.0 for carcinogens. The reasons for the different  indices
               include: 1. The chemicals of primary concern, the ones which have migrated off-
               site, are in aon-carcinogens; 2. The carcinogens are essentially confined to on-
               site in the shallow A aquifer, which, while it is a potential drinking water
               source, is  not now used for drinking water, .and 3. The method of calculating the
               two indices are not the same, with the non-carcinogen index based  on laboratory
               data and the carcinogen index based on statistical,analysis, therefore setting the
 °             same value does not  have a basis. Objectives of the investigations and studies to
               date are not detailed enough to  define the extent and aature of cleanup that
              • would be needed to reach a CHI of 0.25. For the above reasons, at this time staff
               does not recommend modifying the CHI or delaying a final decision. However,
               staff believes this is  a valid concern and has therefore added a requirement that
               such a modification be evaluated when doing the five year evaluation of the
               Remedial Action Man.

 1. Pumping should not continue since the froaadvater Is Already safe to Iriak.

 Response -    The protection of beneficial uses, ia tikis case driakag water supply, is  just one
               of the goals of this cleanup plan. The other  major goal m to implement the State's
               non-degradation policy by cleaaiag op the water to the extent reasonable*. la
               addition, cleaning up to  below drinking water standards adds aa  extra level of
*"    .        protection should those standards change ia the future or if  future  spills or leaks
               occur.

 SB. Require each separate operation  to meet the «ae la a million caacer risk reqairemeat.

 Response -    The remediation plan requires all groundwater to be cleaned apjo the  1.0 CHI,
               or one in  million additional cancer risk. Putting separate requirements on each
               operational unit would not increase the cleanup of the groundwater.
 9/30/18       '                             -3-

-------
 Responsiveness Summary
 SUMMARY OF COMMENTS AND STAFF RESPONSES


 b. Cleanup should b« permanent.

 Response -    The remedittioD plan will implement a permanent cleanup of pollutants in
              groundwater and soil along with continued monitoring to assure the effectiveness
              of the cleanup. Permanent destruction of the pollutants is possible under the plan
            .  using air pollution control equipment. The  Plan  relies on the permitting process
            '  of the Bay Area Air Quality Management  District to protect public health and
              the environment  from exposure  to airborne pollutants. A decision on whether
              permanent destruction of the pollutants  is necessary will be made by  the
              BAAQMD based  on their permitting process. An analysis of the impact  of air
              pollutants in the plan shows insignificant impact, i.e. i maximum of less than a
              one in ten million  increased  risk of cancer due to exposure to untreated air
              emissions.

 c. The final cleanup should mot rely OB dilation.

 Response >    The remediation plan relies  primarily on the extraction and treatment of
              Irouhdwater to meet cleanup goals. The need to  conserve groundwater does limit     .f
              the amount of extraction feasible. Also, there will be  aome dilution  through      ,
              natural processes. However, dilution  is not t major method  of  meeting the
              cleanup goals.

d. Permanent destruction of pollutants nslag Innovative technology Is seeded.

Response -    Innovative technology was addressed in  the draft remediation plan. See Response
              2.b.

e. Final cleanup levels should not be based on drinking .water action levels.

Response -    Cleanup levels are based on two major bases contained in Federal and State law,
              regulation, and policy. Pint is a legal requirement for the protection  of the
              beneficial uses of  the grouadwater. This requires that the groundwater be cleaned
              up to at least potable drinking water levels. The  second basis is the  State's policy
              to  maintain the existing high quality of the waters of the state (non-degradation
              policy), which requires cleanup to the  extent reasonable.  Available information
              indicates that cleanup to • hazard index (HI) of 0.25 for non-carcinogens and a
              1.0 HI for carcinogens, which  is much  more stringent than most drinking water
              standards, meets the nondegradation goal. The remediation plaa does allow for       »
              even stricter kveb if information gathered  during the cleanup shows that  further
              removal of chemicals ii reasonable or *

f. Cleanup levels abovld not be arbitrarily set

Response -    Cleanup levels are based on drinkiag water requirements tad the extent of
              chemical removal that is technically and economically  reasonable. Also, see
              Response 2.e. above.                   '                            .

g. Concern abbot fnture changes la acceptable levels «f chemicals la drinking water.

Response -    The remediation  plan allows  the  Regional Board  to modify'Cleanup  goals if
              drinking  water standards  are modified  in the future. Abo, the cleanup goals in
              the plan are below the current standards, which allows an extra margin of safety.


9/30/88                                    -2-

-------
                         RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY


                  SUMMARY OF COMMENTS AND STAFF RESPONSES

 The following comments ore summarized from the submitted written comments and oral com-
 ments and testimony made during the evening staff workshop of August  II and the Board Public
 Hearing of August 17.  The key to the person or agency responsible for the comment is shown
 previously; correspondence is at Appendix D and verbal comments are from transcripts or the
 staff meeting summary.

 l.EDENVALE CAP

 •.There should be additional coatrol of froandwater passing through the EHcarale Gap.

 Response -   The remediation plan, established cleanup goals throughout the plume area.
              including the Edenvale Gap. The groundwater at the Gap will  need to be
              controlled by IBM to meet those  goals. Staff has amended the Site Cleanup
              Requirements (SCR) to include additional limits at the Gap of 30 ppb for Freon
              and TCA and 0.6 ppb  for DCE. These additional limits further define the
              distribution  of chemical concentrations within  the cleanup goals  and should
              assure no additional degradation of groundwater beyond  the Gap.

 b. Continuous »oa1toriag shoald be required at the Gap walls.

 Response  -   The remediation plan includes a self monitoring plan  which requires frequent
              monitoring of all monitoring and extraction wells in and near the Edenvale Gap
              area. This monitoring plan Is based upon extensive past data.

 e. Current restrictions oa movement .of chemicals should reaaln  IB the  remedlatioa plan.

 Response  •  The current limits oa chemicals passing through the Gap are  10 ppb for TCA
             and Freon and 0.5  ppb  DCE. These limits were viewed as  interim when they
             were  adopted by the Regioaa] Board with the understanding  that they would
              most likely not apply whea the Board established the (then tentative) final
             cleanup foals of 0.25 NCHJ. These limits have been  revised as  described in
             Response  la. to be consifteaf with the overall remediation plan.

d. Add concentration limits for TCA a»d Freon at the Gap.

Response-   See Response la. above.

«. Add pumping monitoring wall at the Gap.                    _

Response -   Staff concurs that  this  would help assure better monitoring of groundwater
             passing through the  Gap and has added this requirement to the SCR.

2. CLEANUP LEVELS                                                        •

a. Support prop   i  cleanup goals.

Response -
10/5/88                                  -1-

-------
                                                                        10
 s. The 40 ug/1 effluent limitations for TCA and Freon 113 are too low for an in-
   stanteous maximum limit. The limits should be 60 ug/1 or higher for each
   chemical.
 t. IBM requests clarification of the "flow through 96-hour bloassays', and of
    the relationship between these bloassays and the bioassay test program
    requested by the Regional Board In Its 12 August 1988 letter.
 u. If receiving water limitations apply to groundwater discharges routed through
   storm sewers, the quality of the receiving water should be judged based on the
   concept of no net adverse Impact, taking Into account upstream water quality
   when appropriate.

Non-Editorial Comments - Groundwater Self "Monitoring Program

 v. Revision to Section C. 1  -  Violation of Requirements to change criteria on which
   an increase in sample collection and analysts Is based
 w. Revise language in Section C.3.d regarding Self-Monitoring Plan Revisions. Add
   language that specif les when regular sampling frequency will resume.

-------
 t> Board should use Consent (rather than unilateral) format to address issues
    which may need to be reopened.
 c. IBM does not concede that the RWQCB has the Juhsdictional power to Issue the
   proposed Order.
 d IBM does not concede that Its activities have created a condition or threat of
   pollution or nuisance, or a significant threat to the environment.
 e. Revision to indicate that other possible sources exist for chemicals found in
   the area beyond Edenvale Gap.
 f. Clarification that the RWOCB will continue to regulate the IBM cleanup,
   whether or not IBM continues to be considered as a CERCLA site.
 g. Soil remediation goals should be 100 times the applicable DHS drinking water
   action level or equivalent rather than Ippm for each chemical of concern. Also,
   soil remediation goal should only be applied in areas where there's a reason-
   able potential for exposure.
 h. IBM notes that CERCLA Section 121(e) appears to provide an exemption from
   compliance with CEO A or other permitting rules.
 1. IBM suggest deletion of the proposed Prohibitions, or at a minimum, editorial
   changes as mentioned in * 13 above.
 j. Chemical concentrations to be used in Hazard Index calculations should be
    running annual averages calculated quarterly.
 k. Revision  to remove goal of 50% reuse of extracted groundwater.
 1. Add Specification 6 which acknowledges the possible impacts on the
   groundwater levels of users other than IBM
 m. Various changes to task submlttal dates.
 n. Delete  Provision 13. It is covered by the provisions of Water Code Section
   13271.

Non-Editorial Comments - NPDES Permit Tentative  Order

 o. The flow rate limitation for Waste 003 should be revised from 1.0 MGD
   to2.5MGD.
 p. Revise paragraph tn Finding 6 on 'Description of Waste 005' to state that the
   polluted groundwater produced from intermittent sample collection Ham-all
   aquifer zones will be considered on a case by case basis.  Further revise that
   same paragraph to state that treatment and disposal of groundwater produced
   from aquifer testing of the A-aquifer zone wells will be on a case by case
   basis.
 a IBM should have the option of monitoring the oil and grease limitations as
-  either oil and grease or as total organic carbon.               ^^
 r. IBM should not be held accountable for effluent limitations that are beyond its
   control due to the natural environment

-------
                              ...                             .8

          IBM's Comments on Tentative Orders for 5CRs and NPDE5 Permit

 6. Editorial Comments - SCRs Tentative Order

 a. The phrase "organic chemicals' should be used 1n place of "organic solvents'
 b. IBM objects to the use of the terms "pollution' and 'pollutants'.
 c. Minor language changes In Finding 8 - Effects on Water Supply Wells.
 d. Revision to clarify that IBM is not solely responsible for groundwater changes
   in the Santa Teresa Basta
 e. Incorrect number of alternative plans evaluated.
 f. Clarify that recharge of significant amounts of groundwater is expected after
   January31. 1989.
 g. Correction to make a more accurate statement about the meaning of an NCHI of
    1.0.
 h. Clarification of  language In Finding 19 regarding remediation levels.
 i. The remediation goals in Table 2 and Specification 4 apply only to the
   transm fsslve areas of the A-aqulfer zone.
 j. Clarification to  confirm that the cleanup plan is consistent with the
   provisions of the Water Code and the Health and Safety Code.
 ((.Clarification of  language In Prohibitions to specify what actions do or do not
    constitute violations, and confirmation that pollutant migration which is not
    considered a violation under Specification 3 would not be considered "signi-
    ficant migration" under Prohibitions 2 and 3.
 1. Incorrect table references shown In denominators in the equations for
   computing the Hazard Indices.
 m. Specification 7 to include a list of Initial compliance wells.
 n Change of language In Provision A on completion delays.
 o Language change In Provision 6 on Quarterly Monitoring Reports.
 p. Minor language change In Provision 1 \ regarding Board access to IBM
    documents.

Editorial Comments - frfflPES Permit Tentative Order

 q. Modify language In Finding  12 regarding effluent  limits.
 r Language change regarding re-evaluation of the permit
• s Incorrect table references shown In denominators In the equations for
   computing Hazard Indices.

4>  Non-Editorial Changes - SCRs tentative Order                  _^_

 a. Better definition needed regarding grounds for reopening the remediation plan
   for further Board review or action,

-------


•
. The soil cleanuo qoal should be 100 times the annuals
DHS drlnklna water action level or eoutvalent
j
Miscellaneous - Total Number of Comments • H
Prooer monltorlna should he onrformprl
;. IBM should remain a orooosed CERCLA «;iti»
. If Technical Assistance Grants are not available., |RM
should be encouraged tq out uo an eoulvalent amount Qf
money to substitute for the Federal oroorarp
. There are no oreclse recharge caoacl ty estimates,, y*fr
. Board should Investigate ways to limit oaoerwork
associated with develoolng cleanuo olan«
. Need more leadershlo and less averaging of oolnlon Ip
deciding critical Issue^
. Board should develoo more and better nubile education mat-
erials oartlcularlv with reoard to nubile safety and rlsjf
How long until the treatment svstems are built and ooerattn
••^^







fl?



Strike the enf&rcement paragrabh CD") In the Plan, it
ha*? IRM hnllrlnn Itself
Board should write a new order reoulrlng that IBri brino
In surface water and Infect It at their nronerty line to keeo





CTY
iBMHM













DHS
••••












i
FPA
^••B












••••
FM
^mmmt












mmmtm
PUBLIC
•^^••••i
1
l|



1
1
|
1
1


|
1
••^••B
CBE/
VlfLf
wr
••^••^

I
i
I





1
J_

mtm^
SCYWD
-J_













WATPD
— nnULR
RFTAII FD^
«^^»— »^«












I^MI^^HlM^HHHBk

-------
 i. Air Emissions icontlnuem
 f. How soon will you evaluate foe effectiveness of the
    scrubbers?	'.	_•
   £11
£11
                                                                                      seme.
 g. What problem would there be In putting the scrubbers on
   the air strtoners before the strlooers are un?     _
 h Will vaoor recovery go on ?Q year9 or beyond If 1 pom
   Is not met. or will It continue only until recovery levels
oftj?
15.Cost -Total Numbernf Comments - S
 a. Cost relative to Hazard Index and amount of water should be
   nnhll chert
 b. Multiple bureaucracies cause delayjnd Increase costs.
 c. IBM should spend whatever It takes to restore the water.
 d. Board should focus on what Is beat for public health and the
       Ironment
   is IBM paying far all of the water they're Dumping out of the
   Soli Cleanup - Total Number of Comments - 5

   steam infection win work with vaoor recovery, the otl

-------

roundwater Reuse (continue)
Does the olan say we're going to oumo untreatable water
Into Canoas Creek?
Look Into more structured reinjectlon: Dump v< jter back
to Just south of the IBM site, rein ject into aauifer then
recycle by oumolng out again
Is IBM going to continue to reuse water to Irrigate trees
that bear croos that are going to bg gp|07
Have you taken Into account the oosBtblllty of drought
conditions contlnulno?
10 you have any Intent of forcing the SCVWD to blend the
peused water Into our existing water sy^terp^
rfhat objection does the SCVWD have to discharging the
treated water Into their oercolatlon nonds?
How much of the system to of oe the reused water to
market ta IBM oolnn to oav?
Ir Emissions - Total Number of jpommants - 8

ipn't allow Freftn emission into air (to protect ozone lay
tfha* haonpns to the material that's volatilized when
vmi mirtfv the water? i« it released to the atmosohcre?-
Do you add together all Jie nearby sources of air oolliitio
"hpn rtpfprfnlnlnd what standards are aooroorlate to mee

blTY

















r)


i


7TY























PH,*)
















•






FPA























r&o














•






••^•B

PUBLIC

|




1

1





1

1
1



1
••^IMBMi^
LCM/
SVTC




1











1




1 	 1

SCVWD










1










I^«B»^"""M
WATER
RETAILFRS



















	 .

— — ••—

-------
. Cleanuo Levels (continued)
.). Suooort Hazard Index aonroach to setting cleanuo levels
Ic Carclnoaenlc hazard Index of 0.25 recommpndPrt
K Pumolno should not continue since water Is already safe
nr Reoulre each seoarate IBM ooerailon (the electronics
shoo machine shoo, etc.) to meet the one cancer death,
oer million reoulrement .__ 	
13. Groundwater Reuse - Total Number of Comments - 27
a. Increase reuse to lOQ^V
b Reuse should be maximized pn and off ^|fp
c. Consider growing hay on the unused land nearby. Irrigate
It with reclaimed wntejr
d IBM should be reoutred to construct and test aooroorlate
1 facilities wherever recharge or direct use Is, feasible
e Market treated oroundwatpr
f Chemicals should not be allowed to enter Great Oaks

o. Plume movement should not be allowed during recharge —
h Avoid use of recharge ponds unleaa a severe drought exist
1. Treated groundwater should not be hlPnrtPfl into existing

1 Don't nut anv unclean water Into the underornund basin — _

1. Discharge of treated groundwater to Canoas Creek Is
beneficial because It suDDorts Guadaluoe River fishery
QITY
















ffiY
















PH?>

1



1










FP/S
















WJ















1
PUBLk
1

1
1
1
II
1



II
1.
1

-
•MHMnM
vcu.
s>ir









1





•••••
SCYWD
^VI *' K_



|
1


1






•••^••i^
JOfiLUL.
RFTAII FR^
|nul n|LLn^
1


I
1

1







•MMMHIM^M

-------
p • "»• ••»•" VF» \~\* m 11.111 «j in ntJrVJJi
7*1ttfrS
Edenvale Can - Total Number of fpmjnents - 9
. rfccO COnLIUIS at tuGnVdlc G2P ^ .-
Want continuous monitoring at Gan
. Current restrictions on movement of contaminant
should remain In cleanuo oermlL
. Add numerical concentration levels for TCA and Frebri
at the Gao. consistent with the overall 0 25 I^UPI
. Add DumDlng: monitoring well at the Rai)
Cleanuo Levels - Total Number of Comments - 22
^SuDDprt oroDosed cleanuo goals -
, Need oermanent ct?3nuo*
Cleanup should not be by dHutfon
Need oermanent destruction of oollutants using
Innovative technoloot***
Should not use drinking water action k ts for
cleanun leveta
Cleanuo levels siiOulL not be arbitrarv • > ] '
Concerned amut future changes In what are now consider

£|eanun should be to non-detectable based on the

Cost should not be considered In determining cleanup level
Jt M
CITY











5d


Is
j ir
cir









,



it ion Btr^BAHVLO
COMMEhfTORIG
DHSlEPAF&GPlimin
1
•••••



1








•••^












••••












m^^fm^mm
1



Hi



II
1
II

J._
RDER
INATION
CBE/
SYTC bcvwn
^••^•M
1



1
1
1





1
1

1

1
I





1

WATER
RETAILERS
1
1


/
1









-------
 3 Gro'jndwater Reuse - The primary concerns were for the maximization of reuse
 and for what the treated water should or should not be used, with 27 comments
 made by 6 groups, this issue ranked first in significance to the commentors.
                                   CBE/          WATER
  CITY CTY DHS EPA F&6 PUBLIC  SVTC  SCVWD RETAILERS  TOTAL
              1         1    14     2      4	5	22

 4 Air Emissions - The major area of Interest was in assuring that atr scrubbers
 would be part of the air treatment system.  Eight comments were received on this
 general topic, from 3 different groups, making the issue rank fourth in local
 interest
                                   CBE/          WATER
  CITY CTY DHS EPA F&G PUBLIC  SVTC  SCVWD RETAILERS TOTAL
 	6      1	1	   B

 5. Cost -  Interest was expressed in focusing less on the cost of cleanup and more
 on the 'quality' of the cleanup.  Five comments came in from the public on this
 issue, ranking It fifth along with Soil Cleanup.
                                   CBE/          WATER
  CITY CTY DHS EPA F&6 PUBLIC  SVTC  SCVWD  RETAILERS  TOTAL
 	5	_	&

6. Soil Cleanup - The exploration of steam Injection as a soil cleanup method was
the issue most frequently raised.  Three different groups made a total of 5
comments on this general topic, causing It to-rank fifth along with Cost
                                   CBE/           WATER
  CITY CTY DHS EPA F&G PUBLIC  SVTC  SCVWD  RETAILERS  TOTAL
     '	3      f  '    • 1	5

7. Miscellaneous • Fourteen comments on other diverse topics were made by two
 groups. This category seemed appropriate (or those comments.
                                   CBE/           WATER
  CITY CTY DHS EPA F&G PUBLIC SVTC  SCVWD  PETAILEPS  TOTAL
        	Q      S	  14

-------
                         IBM RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY

    The purpose of this Responsiveness Summary Is two-fold: first, It provides the
 Regional Water Quality Control Board with Information about the community's
 general concerns about the site and their preference regarding the proposed
 cleanup plan, and second, 1t demonstrates to members of the public how their
 concerns were taken into account as part of the decision making process.
    Six major issues were raised regarding the IBM Tentative Orders and Proposed
 Final Cleanup Plan. These were: the need for additional controls or monitoring at
 Edenvaie Gap concerns about the adequacy and appropriateness of the cleanup
 Levels, how much Groundwater Reuse ,s enough, Air Emissions, the Cost of
 Cleanup, and Soil Cleanup.  Concerns which did not fall into these categories art
 addressed in the section titled Miscellaneous.  A separate section addresses IBM's
 comments.
    A description of each issue and general  information about who raised that
 Issue follows.  A table which summarizes the general comments begins on page 3.
 IBM's comments can be found on page 8. Staff's response to all comments follows
 that.  .

                        DESCRIPTION OF MAJOR  ISSUES

 1. Edenvaie Gap - The primary concerns were for continued monitoring and/or
 controls at the Gap.  This issue ranked third in terms of number of comments,
 with a total of 9 comments being made by 5 different groups.
                                      CBE/          WATER
 «  CITY  CTY DHS  EPA  T&6  PUBLIC SVTC  SCVWD  RETAILERS  TOTAL
 	1         	11        3	3	i

 2  Cleanup Levels - General Interest was expressed in what the actual cleanup
 levels  are, and  in how they were established  Beyond this, concerns varied widely.
 Some felt that  pumping should cease since the water was already safe, others felt
 cleanup should  continue until chemicals were non-detectable. This issue ranked
 second m terms or number or comments made, with 22 comments coming m from 5
 groups.                                               -
                                     CBE/           WATER
  CITY   CTY  DHS  EPA  F&6  PUBLIC  SVTC   SCVWD RETAILERS  TOTAL
               2	12      33         2       22

 «• City -City of San Jose, Cty- Santa Clara County,  DHS-Department of HeelthServtees. EPA-
 Environmental Protect ion Agency, F&O-Fiah&tene, Public -People uneffilteted with any of the other
groups, or members of public Interest groups such as the League of Women Voter?  C&&/SVTC • Citizens
for e Better Environment/Silicon Valley Toxics Cool I lion, SCVWD - Santa Clare Valley Water District

-------
at* •» CoWomia                         f                     Ck     ; of He: - Wvkts

                                     AUG301988
 -j   •         .
\4iorandum

                                QUALITY CONTROL BOARD
      Steve Ritchie                                '  Augu     ,  l9E
      Executive Officer                        ...
      California Regional Water Quality         *»i»e" Tenti     Order  for
       Control Board                            Bite Clet     nd K?:zs
      San Francisco Bay Region                  Permit f c     . ,  EE:  Jose
      1111 Jackson Street, Room €040             Santa Cli     -unty
      Oakland, CA  94607                        W43-000 c     M

      Clifford L.  Bowen, P.E.
      District Engineer
      Monterey District
      Public Water Supply Branch
      The subject document has been reviewed as requested      have
      the following recommendations;

      1.    SITE CLEANUP LEVELS

           The proposed remediation lavala  for tha B-  and     ^er
           aquifers are 0.25 NCHX for noncarcinogens and     3JI fcr
           carcinogens (Reference aourca:   Sita Cleanup I     re*
           ments,  paga 5, Item 120).  Tha Department of I     i
           Services,  Public Water Supply Branch, concur!     tha
           prescribed .25 VCHZ levels for noncareinogenc,     .:ver,
           va racomnend applying tha sane level of ha z arc     ax at
           0.25 for tha carcinogens found in the IBM cent     ation
           aita as final cleanup lavala for that groundwtv

      2.    PLUME CONTROL XT AND BEYOND EDENVALE GAP

           We concur with tha objactivea of Regional BOL:     IBM
           Cleanup plan to (1) protect public health ELTK
           environment, (2) be tachnically  feasible, tnc
           cost-effective (Reference aourca:  Sita Cletr.
           Requiraaanta, paga 4, Xtaa IIS). Tba goal  oi
           Drinking Water Program is to assura that vatc     rs t:  f
           to tha axtant poaBible, provided a raliable r      of
           aafa drinking vatar at all times.  We, there:     ctrc:  :.y
           recoamend that tha aquifers used for doneetir     iy
           purposes ba protected against contamination
           maximum extent poaaibla within reasonably '
           aconomical limits.  Consequently, we atr
           maintain optimal plume control at tha F
           critical sona of chemical capture  of t'
           Program in order to minimize tha relr           ^i.
      -     beyond tha Gap and into tha undefir             Ic ; .
           Since Region II aquifers ara extent.              ' ^v.
         ,  stream municipal and private communit.             tic
           supply, tha ralaasa of chemicals beyon,            -ulc
           directly impact tha watar quality  of the           vat
           sources of these downstream uaara.   Tho&c   L

-------
                                                               Hazardous
                                                               Informc
                                                               US
                                                               Phi]
 Kr.  sr -e Ritchie
 Page 2
 August 29, 1988
      levels permitted under the subject order should not be
      used to condone contamination up to those levels where
      the release of those contaminants can be minimized by
      available technology and economically feasible measures.

 3.    EXTRACTED GROUNDWATER REUSE              „  '   '

      The Department of Health Services recognizes that the
      extracted groundvater generated in the IBM Cleanup
      Program is a significant resource which should not be
      wasted.   We support the State Water Resources Control
      Board's Resolution No. 88-88 to maximize beneficial reuse
      of  the extracted groundvater.  We further concur with the
      Regional Board's proposed treatment levels at 1 ppb or
      less of total volatile organic chemicals for extracted
      water to be recharged into the groundwater rquifers
      (Reference source:  IBM Superfund Sits Fact Sheet f3,
      July 1988, pags 6).  These proposed level* for the
      extracted vatsr would be adequate from a public health
      standpoint to not compromise the beneficial use of the
      recharged groundwater aquifers for subsequent domestic/
      drinking purposes*

•4o    Please forward copies of all correspondence, report*
      and documents pertaining to compliance vith the Site
      Cleanup,Requirement* to the Department of Health Services
      - Public Water Supply Branch (Reference source:  Site
      Cleanup Requirements, C. Provisions, Item- fio, pages
      14-15).

We appreciate the opportunity to provide technical review and
evaluation relating to rater supply issues of  the IBM Cleanup
Program.   For further questions on this matter* please  contact
Catherine 6.  Ling at (415) 540-2160.
cc:  IBM Mailing List«
     Retail  Water Agencies

-------