United States Office of
Environmental Protection Emergency and
Agency Remedial Response
EPA/ROD/R09-90/054
September 1990
Superfund
Record of Decision:
Applied Materials, CA
-------
50272-101
REPORT DOCUMENTATION 11. REPORT NO. 12.
PAGE EPA/ROD/R09-90/054
I
3. Recipient'l Acceslion No.
4. Title Ind Subtitle
SUPERFUND RECORD OF DECISION
Applied Materials, CA
First Remedial ,Action
7. Author(l)
5. Report Dste
09/28/90
'F'
.
6.
8. Perlonning Orgsnlzatlon Repl No.
9. Perfonnlng Orgllnlzatlon Nome snd Addrese
10. ProjectITeaklWork Unit No.
11. Contract(C) or Grsnt(G) No.
(C)
(G)
12. Sponaorlng Orglnlzltlon Nome Ind Address
U.S. Environmental Protection
401 M Street, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460
13. Type 01 Report' Period Covered
Agency
800/000
14,
15. Supplementery Notee
18. Abetrect (Limit: 200 worde)
The 9-acre Applied Materials site is an active equipment manufacturing facility in Santa
Clara, Santa Clara County, California. The site is located within the San Tomas Aquino
floodplain, and land use in the area is primarily light industrial, commercial, and
residential. Shallow ground water at the site is a potential drinking water source.
Onsite operations include manufacturing vapor deposition equipment for use by the
semiconductor industry. In 1983, Applied Materials discovered that several leaks and/,
spills from three onsite underground tanks near Building 1 had contaminated onsite soil
and shallow ground water with VOCs and other organics. In 1984 and 1985, as part of
interim onsite cleanup activities, Applied Materials excavated and removed underground
tanks, piping, and more than 60 cubic yards of contaminated onsite soil, and installed
an air stripping unit onsite to treat VOC-contaminated ground water. This Record of
Decision (ROD) provides a final remedy for contaminated onsite ground water at the
Building 1 area. Remediation of onsite contaminated soil will be addressed in a
subsequent ROD. The primary contaminants of concern affecting the ground water are VOCs
including PCE, TCE, and 1,1,1-TCA.
(See Attached Page)
17. Document Analyele L De8Crfptora
Record of Decision - Applied Materials, CA
First Remedial Action
Contaminated Medium: gw
Key Contaminants: VOCs (PCE, TCE)
-
-
b. Idendfier./Open.Ended Terma
c. COSA TI FIeIdIGroup
18. Avall.blllty Statement
19. Security Cle.. (This Report)
None
20, Security Ct... (Thle Page)
Nl"'ln'"
21. No. 01 P.ge.
84
22. Prfce
.
(See ANSl-Z39.18)
See InstrucUons on Rev.,."
272 (4,'7)
(Formerty NTl5-35)
Department 01 Convnerce
-------
~ .
EPA/ROD/R09-901054
~)plied Materials, CA
First Remedial Action
Abstract (Continued)
The selected remedial action for this site includes onsite pumping and treatment of
contaminated ground water using an existing air stripping unit, followed by onsite
discharge of the treated water to surface water; ground water monitoring; and
implementing institutional controls including deed restrictions. The estimated present
worth cost for this remedial action is $715,000. No O&M costs were provided for this
remedial action.
PERFORMANCE STANDARDS OR GOALS: Ground water cleanup levels will meet State and
Federal Drinking Water MCLs and include PCE 0.005 ug/l (MCL), TCE 0.005 ug/l (MCL), and
l,l,l-TCA 0.0032 ug/l (MCL). It is estimated that the time needed to restore ground
water to beneficial use will be 50 years.
-------
. .
--- .--.-..--. .--.-....-.--------..... -~-- ----
._---,'-,,---,-",--.'_..~-' -' ~.'-..
!- . -. 0" . . ' .". ..
. ~
('1
r..
RECORD OF DECISION
DEClARATION STATEMENT
SITE NAME AND LOCATION
Applied Materials Inc., superfund site
Santa Clara, California
STATEMENT OF BASIS AND PURPOSE
This decision documen~; prese"ts the selected remedial action
for the groundwater operable unit for the Applied Materials
Superfund site located in Santa Clara, California, developed in
accordance with the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act of 1980, 42 U.S.C. section 9601,
(CERCLA) and the National oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution
Contingency Plan, 40 C.F.R. Part 300, 55 Fed. Reg. 8666 (3/9/90)
(NCP). The decision is based on the administrative record for
this site.
The'State of California has no objections to the technical
elements of the selected remedy.
ASSESSMENT OF THE SITE
Actual or threatened releases of hazardous substances from
this site, if not addressed by implementing the response action
selected in this Record of Decision (ROD), may present an
imminent and substantial endangerment to the public health,
welfare, or the environment.
DESCRIPTION OF THE SELECTED REMEDY
The selected remedy for the Applied Materials site addresses
grnundwater contamination, in which trichloroethane (TCA) is the
primary contaminant detected above drinking water standards.
Analytical results from January - June 1989 indicate the presence
of the following contaminants in groundwater: 1,1,1-TCA at 1,100
ppb; 1,1-DCA at 120 ppb; 1,1-DCE at 50 ppb; TCE at 20 ppb; PCE at
9 ppb; 1,2-DCA at 2.3 ppb; 1,2-DCE at 0.6 ppb; 1,1,2-TCA at 1.0
ppb; Freon 113 at 170 ppb; and Freon 11 at 48 ppb.
This action represents the final remedial action to remove
contaminants from groundwater. Several response measures were
previously implemented at the site by Applied Materials. The
major components of the selected remedy are:
a. Continue pumping from existing groundwater extraction
wells until drinking water standards for TCE (5 ppb);
1,2-DCA (0.5 ppb); 1,1-DCE (6ppb); 1,1-DCA (5 ppb), cis-
1,2-DCE (6 ppb); trans-1,2-DCE (10 ppb); 1,1,1-TCA (200
-------
~ .
.i
ppb), 1,1,2-TCA (32 ppb), Freon 113 (1200 ppb), and Freon
11 (150 ppb) chloroform (6 ppb), and vinyl chloride (0.5
ppb) are achieved; . .
b. Treat extracted groundwater using an existing air
stripping system;
c. continue groundwater monitoring at the site during the
cleanup period;
d. Implement institutional controls, such as deed
restrictions, which will control and restrict the
withdrawal and use of contaminated groundwater and
control and limit activities that could result in
exposure to volatile organic compound (VOC)
contamination. Controls and restrictions within the
plume will be necessary until drinking water levels have
been achieved for all VOCs.
e. Reclamation and/or reuse of 100% of the groundwater that
is extracted and treated is a goal of this remedial
action.
f. Discharge treated water off-site to a storm sewer system
tributary of San Tomas Aquino Creek pursuant to an NPDES
permit.
STATUTORY DETERMINATIONS
The selected remedy is protective of human health and the
environment, compli~s with federal and State requirements that
are legally applicable or relevant and appropriate to the
remedial action and is cost-effective. This remedy utilizes
permanent solutions and alternative treatment or resource
recovery technologies to the maximum extent practicable and
satisfies the statutory preference for selecting remedies that
employ treatment as a principal element and that significantly
and permanently reduces the toxicity, mobility, or volume of the
hazardous substances. -
A review of the remedial action will be conducted every five
years after commencement to ensure that the remedy continues to
provide protection of human health and the environment.
9.7-'6. 'f 0
Date
'~l.J~
C ~ D el W. McGovern
~ Regional Administrator
EPA Region IX
-------
-
. .. .... -----.-
. . ----_. ... --- ... -'---- _._- ~ ----._.a . --- . -' '" .
- ,-." .
....._.~_.-..:- ;'-
f.
DECISION SUMMARY
1.
site 8..e, Location, and Description
APPLIED MATERIALS, INC.
3050 BOWERS AVENUE BUILDING 1 FACILITY
CITY OF SANTA CLARA, SANTA CLARA COUNTY
STATE OF CALIFORNIA
The Applied Materials, Inc. Superfund site (AM or the site),
is located at 3050 Bowers Avenue in the City of Santa Clara.
Applied Materials manufactures vapor deposition equipment used in
the semiconductor industry in its Building 1 plant. Building 1
is located on a nine-acre parcel about 6.4 miles south of San
Francisco Bay and within one mile of Calabazas, Saratoga, and San
Tomas Aquino Creeks (see figures 1 and 2.)
The population of the City of Santa Clara is about 90,000.
The population density in the vicinity of the site is about 4,660
people per square mile. Land use near the site is primarily
light industrial, commercial and residential. Agricultural use
dominated the area before 1970 but presently represents only a
small percentage of land use near the site.
The two primary natural resources in the vicinity of AM are
land and water. The potential for agricultural u~e has been
greatly reduced by conversion of land to light industrial,
commercial and residential use.
Ground water for human consumption is extracted from wells
from about 150 to 500 ft deep in the Santa Clara Valley. The.
nearest drinking water supply well to the AM site is located
3,500 ft upgradient, to the southwest.
Volatile organic compounds (VOCs) were first detected in
groundwater in November 1983, in the vicinity of three
underground tanks at the west side of Building 1. The
predominant pollutant in 1983 was trichloroethane (l,l,l-TCA) at
concentrations up to 12,000 parts per billion (ppb); also
detected were trichloroethylene (TCE), dichloroethylene
(l,l-DCE), dichloroethane (DCA), Freon 113, and other VOCs.
2.
site ~istory and Enforcement Activities
In 1983, Applied Materials discovered that underground tank
leakage and/or spills had resulted in the contamination of soil
and shallow groundwater with organic solvents, principally
1,1,1-trichloroethane (TCA), with lower concentrations of
1,1-dichloroethane (DCA) 1,1-dichloroethylene (DCE), and with
trace amounts of perchloroethylene (PCE), and Freon 113.
1
-------
APPLIED MATERIALS
Figure 1. Lcatiao of Applied MtfoUs Bofldtay 1
-------
SCOTT
FC-4
,.
) l
-'
BOULEVARD
HP-3.
. HP-7
APPLIED
MATEKIALS - 3 H
P-Z-
HP-".
-HP-5
-HP-t8
HP"-
HP-I.
HP..
.
AM'-4.
I~--~~--~--~t~.
. .
. ' AM'-58
: I i AM'-SE
'------------_1"""-1
.AM'-8 '
AM'-I
.
AM'-1
AM1-10~..AM1-Z
AM'-EP-:f-3
.P-Z
-AM'!
o
I
200 FT.
.
. - . ,- .
) L
., '. .
.AY.' ,
weiss ASSOCIA TCS
JIUi
AV-'8.
-AV-' A
AY-IO
.
~
~
Z
~
---------
.
AY.'
tI:I AY._. r-=::-I
o U--:AV-.
~ AV-7A. AYANTEK
~ _AV.78
en
A -4A
AV-E.2- ~AV-"8
AV-E1. .AV-E3
'. .
'AV.IR AV.S
AV-3
.
EXPLANATION
. AM'.I MonilOfing .811
. HP-,
. po'
FiguIC a. Wells in the Vicinil, or Applied Malerials DuUdin. I
Sealed and abandoned monitoring well
Pielome..,
I
-------
...:.-.-- -..
.. -- . -_4-
.. .-. .. '.-
. - -
~ .
.'J
AM has been conducting interim cleanup activities consisting
of tank and soil removal and groundwater extraction with
treatment by air stripping. .
In 1984 and 1985, VOCs were detected at concentrations up to
65 milligrams per liter (mg/l) in soil samples collected in the
vicinity of the underground tanks. These data suggested that the
VOCs were released from the tanks and/or associated piping. The
tanks have been excavated and removed. Above 60 cubic yards of
contaminated soil were also removed. The excavation was filled
and converted into an extraction pit. About 10,000 gallons of
water were extracted to remove sediment and develop the pit.
Soil borings indicated that some contaminated soils remain in
place in the immediate vicinity of the former tanks. Additional
soil was not removed because of a perceived threat to the
integrity of the Building 1 structure.
Interim groundwater extraction and treatment began in July
1984. AM has installed and maintains nine onsite monitoring
wells, including seven in the A zone and two in the underlying B
zone, and three piezometers in the A zone in the vicinity of the
extraction pit. The extraction system consists of three wells
and the extraction pit and removes from 20,000 to 26,000 gallons
of water per day. The extracted groundwater is processed through
an air stripping unit which discharges to San Tomas Aquino Creek
and ultimately to South San Francisco Bay. This discharge is
regulated under a NPDES permit from the California Regional Water
Quality Control Board, San Francisco Bay Region (the Board).
Prior to the discovery of subsurface contamination at the
site, significant VOC concentrations had been detected at three
sites bordering the AM property. However, VOC plumes from the
neighboring sites do not appear to extend to the AM site and it
is probable that no VOCs were present in the shallow groundwater
at Building 1 prior to onsite release.
Lead Aaencv. Pursuant to the South Bay Multi-Site Cooperative
Agreement and the South Bay Ground Water contamination
Enforcement Agreement, entered into on May 2, 1985 (as
subsequently amended) by the California Regional Water Quality
Control Board, San Francisco Bay Region, EPA, and DHS, the
Regional Board has been acting as the lead regulatory agency.
The Regional Board will continue to oversee the remediation of
the site pursuant to CERCLA, the NCP and applicable state law.
,.
2
-------
.... ....... . ._~. _._6" -.- ...-
. .
- ... ,.- - . -- . _. -.' -.. - .
site Listinq Historv and Enforcement ChronoloQV
~ .
The site is on the National Priorities List (NPL) and is
regulated under site Cleanup Requirements of the Regional
Board as indicated herein: .
October 15, 1984
site proposed for the NPL.
Regional Board adopted NPDES
Permit NO. CA0028851, for
the discharge of treated
water to a storm drain
system tributary to San
Tomas Aquino Creek and
South San Francisco Bay.
June 19, 1985
September 17, 1986
Regional Board adopted
waste'discharge requirements
for the site.
July 22, 1987
site added to the final NPL.
December 21, 1988
Regional Board adopted a
revised NPDES Permit No.
CA9928851
September 20, 1989
Regional Board adopted site
cleanup requirements
Order No. 89-167.
June 20, 1990
Regional Board adopted
permit renew~l for NPDES
Permit No. CA9928851.
September 19, 1990
September 19, 1990 Regional
Board adopted amendments to
site cleanup requirements
Order No. 90-134.
3.
community Participation
Fact Sheet No.1
RIfFS completed
June 1989: -Fact Sheet No.2, Proposed Final Cleanup
June 15, 1989: Notice of pUblic meeting published in Santa
Clara American
June 21, 1989 - July 21, 1989: Public Comment Period
Documents available at the Santa Clara
----------------public Library and the Regional Board
June 21, 1989: Public Hearing on Proposed Plan
June 22, 1989: Notice of public meeting published in the
Santa Clara American
May 1989:
3
-------
. ..., . - ...
! .
. '.
June 29, 1989: Public Meeting on Proposed Plan
Sept. 20, 1989: Public Hearing to Adopt Proposed Plan and
Regional Board Site Cleanup Orders
Aug. 1990: Fact Sheet No.3, Revised Final Cleanup
Aug. 15, 1990: Public Hearing on Proposed Plan
Aug. 15, 1990 - Sept. 15, 1990: Public Comment Period
- Documents available at the Santa Clara
---------------------Public Library and the Regional Board
Sept. 19, 1990: Public Hearing to Adopt Proposed Plan
and Regional Board site cleanup orders
The comments received during the public comment period and at the
public hearings are addressed in the Responsiveness Summary which
is attached to this ROD.
Plan
4.
scope and Role of the Operable Unit within the Site Strategy
The principal threat posed by the site is from contaminated
groundwater that may be used as drinking water or may migrate to
contaminate a drinking water aquifer. The selected remedy is for
an operable unit that will address the principle threat by
. capturing and removing contaminated groundwater and treating it
to health-based levels. The remedial action will prevent any
further migration of contaminants in the groundwater, prevent any
future exposure of the public to contaminated groundwater and
restore the groundwater to drinking water quality. This operable
unit does not address-cleanup of soils. contaminated soils known
to exist under Building 1 and the utility pad and dock will be
addressed in the future in another operable unit or as part of a
final site-wide ROD.
5.
Summary of site Characteristics
This ROD addresses groundwater contamination from all known or
suspected sources.
Chemicals Detected. VOCs were first detected in groundwater
in November 1983, in the vicinity of three underground tanks at
the west side of Building 1. The predominant pollutant in 1983
was trichloroethane (l,l,l-TCA) at concentrations up to 12,000
parts per billion (ppb); also detected were trichloroethylene
(TCE), dichloroethylene (1,1-DCE), dichloroethane (l,l-DCA),
Freon 113, and other.VOCs.
Analytical results from January through June 1989 indicate
the presence of the following VOCs in groundwater onsite:
1,1,1-TCA at 1,100 ppb; 1,1-DCA at 120 ppb; 1,1-DCE at 50 ppbi
TCE at 20 ppbi PCE at 9 ppb; 1,2,-DCA at 2.3 ppb; 1,2-DCE at 0.6
ppbi 1,1,2-TCA at 1.0 ppbi Freon 113 at 170 ppb; and Freon 11 at
48 ppb. .
4
-------
. --- '. - .~'_.' ~~ .
. .
VOCs are identified as either carcinogenic (cancer-causing)
or noncarcinogenic (not. cancer-causing).. The VOCs found in the II.
subsurface at this site include several which have been
categorized by the EPA as capable of causing cancer in humans:
(1) possible human carcinogen - 1,1-DCE, and 1,1,2-TCA; (2)
probable human carcinogen - TCE, PCE, 1,1-DCA and 1,2-DCA CEDC).
Chloroform, a probable human carcinogen, was detected in onsite
samples collected .from 1983 through 1986 and in 1988. Vinyl
chloride, a known human carcinogen, was detected twice, once in
1983 and once in 1985, in samples from two different source-area
wells; and more recently (1990) in samples from a newly installed
extraction well.
Hvdroqeoloqy. The site is in the Santa Clara Valley, a
sedimentary basin filled with unconsolidated heterogeneous
alluvial material, sometimes interspersed with layers of marine
clay. The alluvium is a mixture of permeable water-bearing sands
and gravels interbedded with less permeable silts and clays. The
soils are extremely variable over short distances, both
horizontally and vertically.
Water-b~aring deposits in the Santa Clara Valley and at the
Building 1 site are generally divided into three laterally
traceable units, beginning with the near-surface A zone and
progressing with depth through the B zone and into the C zone.
The top of the A zone is found at depths between 9 and 15 feet
below the surface; the B zone at between 42 and 47 feet. The A
and B zones are separated by a layer of silty clay at least 5
feet thick.
Groundwater is found at a depth of about eight feet in the A
zone and is confined or semi-confined. Groundwater flow is to
the northeast, at a calculated velocity of about two feet per
day. Water level measurements indicate an upward hydraulic
gradient between the A and B zones. Water in the A and B zones
at this site is not withdrawn for any current use other than the
interim remedial actions presently underway.
The C zone is located from 150 to more than 500 feet below
the surface, and contains aquifers which produce water for
domestic and other uses. The C zone aquifers are separated from
the shallow A and B aquifers by clay layers ranging from 50 to
150 feet. These clay layers can provide an effective natural
barrier to vertical groundwater movement, but are not universally
present. The integrity of clay barriers that are present may be
compromised at specific locations by abandoned wells that are
improperly' sealed and act as conduits for the vertical migration
of pollutants.
VOCs at this site are found in fine-grained silts and clays
in the depth interval of 8 to 19 feet, and in the groundwater and
soils of the underlying gravelly sand of the A zone aquifer which
is five or mor~ feet thick. VOCs have also been found in the B
zone, to a limited extent. By 1983, the AM plume had migrated a
5
-------
j l
SCOTT
BOULEV ARD
HP.3.
HP.7
.
APPLIED
MATERIALS - 3
HP.Z
.
.
HP-4
.
HP-5
.
HP"
<1
HP"
.
tlC-4
2.3
HP'1.
-
'52
.----------...,.;!. AMI". \
: / ~
: / .. ~M1.S8. 48 I
<0.1. i . S AMI.SE
AMI'" ._--I--r.;6----~M~! I
AMI" I
I 25
::,._~ ~ ",. ')
1800 ~~
~M1.1~. /
AM1-10 .tM1-Z / ",.
100 .P-3 ~ ",
AM1-EP '- ~~.~,....
. <0. 1 APPLIED
AM1-3 MATERIALS-1
N
t
o
I
200 FT.
I
j
,- --,-.
l
txJ
o
~
~
(J)
AV.7A
.
WEISS ASSOCIATES
JtUI~
AV.18.
.
AV.1A
~
~
tT:I
Z
~
-----------
.
AV-"
.
AV-8
AV-Z
.
~VANTEK
AV-e
.
AVANTEK
AV.7B
.
AV-4A
AV'£Z ..
. . . AV-48
AV.E1. . AV.U
". .
AV-eR AV-S
AV-10
.
AV.'
.
EX PLANA TION
. AM,-.
Monitoring well
Sealed and abandoned monitoring well
. "p.,
36
1,1,1- TCA concentration (ppb)
1,1,1- TCA concentration contour (ppb),
dashed where inferred
......- '\0
Figure 3. Applied Materials Building I and Vicinity - Distribution of I,I,I-TCA (ppb) in the
Al Water-Bearing Zone - May 3, 1990
?/:},,~/0':
-------
--.. "-- ~ ~
.. -. - ~ _u-.. -- - _.- -'4______--._-
- _0. 4 - ... --
". -' . -..- '.- -
.. , . .~. ~...-.
distance of 700 feet or more downgradient, 500 feet
cross-gradient, and vertically downward to a depth of about 50 v.
feet below the surface. The current (1990) areal extent of the
plume is similar to what it was in 1983, but the concentration of
1,1,1-TCA has decreased from a range of 4,000 to 12,000 ppb in
1983, to 25 to 1,800 ppb at present (Figure 3.)
The primary migration pathway is through the aquifers.
There are no surface migration pathways. No water supply wells,
active or abandoned, are located within the plume. The nearest
former water supply well, more than 500 feet deep in the C zone,
was located east of Building 1 and just beyond the eastern margin
of the plume. This well was closed in April 1986 under
supervision of the Santa Clara Valley Water District. The
nearest public water supply well is 3500 feet upgradient to the
southwest. No contaminents have been detected in this well. It
is beyond the capture zone of the extraction wells at this site.
Several thousand people in the city of Santa Clara would
be exposed to contamination from the AM site if it were allowed
to migrate to public or private water wells. Groundwater
contamination could eventually migrate into San Francisco Bay.
6.
Summary of site Risks
The primary exposure route is through the ingestion
(drinking) of contaminated groundwater. Another exposure route
is through inhalation. Potential human health effects resulting
from the presence of VOCs in the groundwater have been evaluated
. by (1) calculating exposure point concentrations for indicator
VOCs, then comparing these to Applicable or Relevant and
Appropriate Requirements. (ARARs)i and (2) calculating exposure
risks for a Maximally Exposed.Individual (MEI) at the location of
highest estimated exposure.
The shallow groundwater in the A and B zones is designated a
potential source of drinking water. Cleanup standards are
.derived which provide an acceptable residual risk to an
individual drinking the water and inhaling VOCs emitted during
indoor uses. In addition to achieving the cleanup standard for
each chemical, the total upperbound cancer risk for the summed
oral and inhalation (and dermal if apPiopriate pathways must be
below the accepted risk level (1 X 10- in this case), and the
sum of the non-carcinogenic Hazard Indices for all pathways must
be less than 1.0.
Cleanup standards for this site, as revised herein, are
shown in Table 1. The table also shows the type of carcinogen,
as determined by the EPA, grouped according to the weight of
evidence from epidemiological studies and animal studies:
Group A - Human Carcinogen (sufficient evidence of
carcinogenicity in humans)
6
-------
~- _.... ..- ....... ~... ....- -..-...
- . . .... L.~ . ..
Group B - Probable Human Carcinogen (Bl-limited evidence of
carcinogencicity in humans; B2~sufficient evidence of
carcinogencity in animals with inadequate or lack of
evidence in humans)
Group C - Possible Human Carcinogen (limited evidence of
carcinogenicity in animals and inadequate or lack of human
data)
7
-------
- .-... .--40..
-.-.'...-.---..--.-.-------.-...-.--. ---.---. .---. ".-
. ".. ,,- - ...--.
TABLE 1
Cleanup Standards
Chemical
Group
J...A - - ..'
.. - .. ...
Cleanup Standard
(mq /1 )
Vinyl Chloride
Chloroform
1,2-Dichloroethane (1,2-DCA)
Tetrachloroethylene (PCE)
Trichloroethylene (TCE)
1,1-Dichloroethane (l,l-DCA)
1,1,2-Trichloroethane (1,1,2-TCA)
1,1-Dichloroethylene (l,l-DCE)
1,1,1-Trichloroethane (l,l,l-TCA)
1,2-Dichloroethylene (1,2-DCE)
cis (c-)
trans (t-)
Freon 11 (F 11)
Freon 113 (F 113)
A
B2
B2
B2
B2
B2/C
C
C
NC
NC
NC
NC
NC
0.0005 (1)
0.006 (2)
0.0005 (1)
0.005 (1)
0.005 (1)
0.005 (1)
0.032 (1)
0.006 (1)
0.200 (1)
0.006 (1)
0.010 (1)
0.150 (1)
1.200 (1)
NC
(1)
(2)
Non-carcinogen
DHS Maximum contaminant Level - MCL
DHS Applied Action Level - AL
8
-------
----~. -".
.-- - _.. .. -. ~
Table 2 gives the cancer potency factors (CPFs) and
reference doses (RfDs) for each VOC identified. Table 3 shows
the calculated risk for identified carcinogens; Table 4 shows the
calculated non-carcinogenic risks.
9
-------
-...... ..-... .----.-
.--.---. ... "-.-'--..---. --~_...... -...- ... .'-
-. -e. ~.. .r-
e ~ - . .
TABLE 2
Cancer Potency Factors (CPFs) for Cancinoge?s
and
Risk Reference Doses (RfDs) for Non-carcinogens
Chemical
CPF.
oral
CPF
inhal
RfD
oral
RfD
inhal
Vinyl Chloride
2.3
0.295
Chloroform
1,2-DCA
PCE
TCE*
1, I-DCA
1,1,2-TCA
1,1-DCE
0.0061 0.081
0.091 0.091
0.051 0.0033
0.011 0.017
0.091 0.091**
0.057 0.057
0.6 1.2
0.01
ND
0.01
0.007
0.1
0.004 ND
0.009
ND
0.1
ND
1,1,1-TCA
c-1,2-DCE
t-1,2-DCE
F 11
F 113
0.09
0.01
0.02
0.3
ND
0.3
30
0.2
ND
ND = No Data; oral = ingestion; inhal = inhalation.
*
TCE is under review by the EPA; the given CPFs and RfDs may
change.
An inhalation factor is not given for 1,1-DCA, but the EPA
believes that the laboratory data are sufficient to apply
the oral factor as an inhalation factor.
**
10
-------
....-.--..,' .----.- ---.'- - .
.... ---'-----" -...--.. "..
. -- -
, . ,- .- A..- .4-'-
. . . .
TABLE 3
Carcinogenic Ri~k
Carcinogen/Group Risk due to Risk due to Risk
Inqestion Inhalation Total
Vinyl Chloride/A 13.8 X 10-6 1.8 X 10-6 15.6 X 10-6
Chloroform/B2 0.4 X 10-6 . 5.8 X 10-6 6.2 X 10-6
1,2-DCA/B2 0.55 X 1~~6 0.55 X 10-6 1.1 X 10-6
PCE/B2 3.1 x 10 0.2 x !~-6 3.3 x 10-6
TCE/B2 0.7 X 10-6 1 X 10 1.7 X 10-6
1,1-DCA/B2-C 5.5 X 10-6 5.5 X 10-6 11 X 10-6
1,1,2-TCA/C 2.2 X 10-5 2.2 x 10-5 4.4 x 10-5
8.3 x 10-5
Risk =
~F :
(Cw) X (CPF) X (HIF)
MC!, or AL
0.012 for carcinogen
1,1-DCE is clas~ified as a Group C carcinogen by the EPA,but is
evaluated using the modified RfD approach so that the risk is
considered independently and is not added to the carcinogenic
risk calculated for the other listed carcinogens. Using the
modified RfD approach, which is applied only to the ingestion
route of exposure, the carcinogenic risk for 1,1-DCE is
determined by comparing the CDI exposure to the RfD/10. This
comparison shows that the exposure would be less than the RfD/10,
and therefore we assume there is no significant risk due to
1,1-DCE.
~
11
-------
r--
. .. .." . ..' -a
_.-. ~ .-. -. L . - ~ ..
- .. ~.. .,
TABLE 4
Non-carcinogenic Risk
Chemical Ingestion HQ
Chloroform 0.0174
1,1-DCA 0.00145
PCE 0.0145
1,1,2-TCA 0.232
1,1-DCE 0.0193
1,1,1-TCA 0.064
t-1,2-DCE 0.0145
F 11 0.0145
F 113 0.0012
Hazard Index
0.37885
= 0.38
HQ = Hazard Quotient
NA = Not Applicable
HQ = CDI
RfD
CDI = (Cw) X (HIF)
Cw = MCL or AL
HIF = 0.029 for non-carcinogen
12
.... . o.
Inhalation HQ
NA
0.00145
NA
NA
NA
0.0193
NA
0.0218
NA
0.04255
= 0.04
-------
. . ~ _0 I'
'.. . ".0.
The total excess cancer risk number shown in Table 3
(excluding risk due to exposure to 1,1-DCE), is 8.3 X 10-~; and
the risk due to 1,1-DCE at its DHS drinking water MCL of 0.006
mg/l is considered insignificant. The Hazard Index calculations
show an HI of 0.38 for the ingestion pathway and an HI of 0.04
for the inhalation pathway (Table 4).
The risk due to non-carcinogens
assessed. The Hazard Index (HI) for
route, summed from calculated Hazard
than.1.0.
at this site was also
each potential exposure
Quotients (HQs), was less
The total carcinogenic risk, as now determined, is within
the accepted EPA range when based on an evaluation of DHS MCLs,
and the non-carcinogenic risk derived from these MCLs is less
than 1.0 for each pathway. As a consequence of these
determinations none of the cleanup standards must be reduced to
less than the DHS MCL or AL, or the non-zero MCLG.
7.
Description of Alternatives
EPA and the Regional Board evaluated five remedial action
alternatives for the site in accordance with CERCLA Section 121,
the National Contingency Plan ("NCP"), and the Interim Guidance
on Superfund Selection of Remedy, December 24, 1986 (OSWER
Directive No. 9355.0-19).
The Feasibility Study initially screened the "following five
groundwater remedial action technologies: (a) active containment
of the groundwater plume and removal of VOCs by groundwater
extraction and treatment; (b) 'passive containment of the
groundwater plume using a slurry wall system and groundwater
extraction and treatment; (c) bioremediation with down gradient
groundwater extraction and treatment; (d) steam and/or hot air
injection with groundwater extraction and treatment; and (e) no
further action with monitoring. The two remedial alternatives
that passed the initial screening and were evaluated utilizing
the nine criteria. The two alternatives are listed below:
Remedial Alternative 1
Remedial Alternative 1 is a "no further action" alternative,
retained for base-line comparison purposes in accordance with EPA
guidance. The use of remedial technologies is not proposed at
the site under this alternative." The existing groundwater
recovery, treatment and discharge operations would be
discontinued, but groundwater monitoring would continue. for at
least 100 years. The total present worth cost of this
alternative is $655,000.
13
-------
- .. -" . ..
-.-.--. h_____... "'-- ...__. ... ..' ... ..
." .,
-. ~..." - . " .'
Remedial Alternative 2
Remedial Alternative 2 consists of the following:
o Institutional constraints on on-site activities and use
of groundwater
o Groundwater monitoring
o Pumping from existing extraction wells until cleanup
standards are met (an estimated 50 years)
o Treatment using the existing air stripping system
o Discharge of treated water to surface water under
existing RWQCB NPDES permit
Total present worth cost = $715,000
The Proposed Plan identified several additional cleanup-
alternatives that included soils. Since this ROD is for the
groundwater operable unit, the soils alternatives are not
described in this ROD.
8.
Summary o~ comparative Analysis of Alternatives
Threshold criteria
Overall Drotection of human health and the environment:
Alternative 2, would be protective of human health and the
environment. Alternative 1, the "no action" alternative is not
protective of human health and the environment, because it is
expected that the groundwater plume would continue to migrate,
further degrading the aquifer.
ComDliance with aDDlicable or relevant and aDDroDriate
reauirements lARARs)
Cleanup standards for this site are determined by the DHS
action levels, State and federal Maximum contaminant Levels, and
California Resolution 68-16. Alternative 2 would meet these
ARARs. Alternative 1 does not meet these ARARs.
Primary Balancing criteria
Lena-term effectiveness and Dermanence:
- .
Alternative 2 would mitigat~ potential future risks by
preventingYthe migration of VOCs in groundwater and restoring the
groundwater quality of the A zone to drinking water standards.
Long-term monitoring and operation and maintenance would be
required. Alternative 1 is not effective or permanent.
I '
I
i
14
-------
.. ~ . --.-....-.-------
--... . .-,..",
... .... . .--... ".4 - .;... - ...... ~... ,.
. . .. .. .
-.... ... .
Reduction of toxicity. mobility. or volume through
treatment:
Alternative 2 would reduce contaminants at the site through
extraction and treatment of contaminated groundwater.
Alternative 1 would not result in a reduction of toxicity,
mObility or volume since it relies on natural attenuation
mechanisms, such as dispersion, sorption, diffusion and
degradation.
Short-term effectiveness:
,
Implementation of Alternative 2 will provide short-term
effectiveness. Risks associated with groundwater monitoring,
recovery, treatment and discharge are mitigated by the health and
safety measures to be implemented at the site although no direct
exposure to contaminants is anticipated.
Alternative 1 will not be effective in containing the
-contaminant plume and in the short term will allow further
migration of contaminants.
Imclementability:
Alternative 2 utilizes proven and readily available
technology; the existing recovery and treatment systems are
already implemented at the site.
Alternative 1, "no action", can be readily implemented at
the site as it involves discontinuing the current remedial
actions.
Cost
The cost to implement Alternative 1 would be lower compared
to the other remedial alternative for the site. Monitoring
wells would need to be maintained for many years. Long term
monitoring of contamination would be required for at least 100
years. The existing extraction wells would need to be plugged
and abandoned and the treatment system could be disassembled and
removed from the sit~. The present worth value is $655,000.
The c6st to implement Alternative 2 would be higher. The
groundwater recovery, treatment, and discharge systems are
already built and operating at the site. The system would require
maintenance to remairi operable. The present worth value is
$715,000 for Alternative 2.
Modifying criteria
15
-------
state/support aqencv acceptance:
The state of California has no objections to the technical
elements of the remedial action selected in this ROD.
Community acceptance
The community is supportive of the preferred alternative.
Applied Materials indicated a preference for Alternative 2 for
groundwater.
'.0 Applioable and Relevant and Appropriate Requirements (ARARS)
and To Be Considered Criteria
Remedial actions selected under CERCLA must attain levels of
cleanup of hazardous substances released into the environment and
control of further release which assure protection of human
health and the environment. CERCLA requires the selection
remedial actions that achieve a level or standard of cleanup that
meets legally applicable or relevant and appropriate
requirements, standards, criteria, or limitations (ARARs).
ARARs are generally separated into three categories: (1)
chemical specific requirements that set health or risk-based
concentration limits or ranges for particular activities; (2)
action-specific requirements; and (3) location-specific
requirements.
The regulatory framework for setting remedial objectives for
the cleanup of groundwater at the site and for the selection of
ARARs is based on the beneficial (current or potential) use of
local ground water as a drinking water supply.
9.1
Chemical-Specific ARARs
Chemical-specific ARARs for the site are federal and State
of California drinking water standards. Applicable federal and
State drinking water standards are presented in the first column
of Table 5.
9.1.1 Federal Drinkinq Water Standards
Potential ARARs for the site include Maximum contaminant
Levels (MCLs), and Maximum contaminant Level Goals (MCLGs) when
set at a level above-zero.
16
-------
Table 5
Chemical Specific ARARs
CA
EPA EPA CA DHS ACTION
MCLs IRISa MCLs LEVELS
Chemical level (DDb or Uq/l)
1,1-dichloroethane (l,l-DCA) 5 5
1,2-dichloroethane (1,2-DCA) 5 0.4 0.5
1,1-dichloroethylene (l,l-DCE)e 7 0.06 6
1,2-dichloroethylene (1,2-DCE)e 70b
cis 6 6
trans 100b 10 10
tetrachloroethylene (PCE) 5b 5
1,1,1-trichloroethane(1,1,1-TCA)e 200 200
1, 1,2-trichloroethane(1,1, 2-TCA) 5b 0.06 32
trichloroethylene (TCE) 5 3 5
freon 113 1200 1200
freon 11 158
chloroform 100c 6 6
vinyl chloride 2 0.5
c.
EPA's Integrated Risk Information System (10-6 risk level)
Proposed MCL
Total trihalomethanes
California DHS applied action level
Chemicals for which the MCL and the non-zero MCLG are the same.
a.
b.
d.
e.
17
-------
-... -" :
'"" ".---
. .
...-=:.
The relevant and appropriate
groundwater cleanup levels at the
Maximum Contaminant Level (MCLs),
Drinking Water Act.
standards to establish
site are the federal and State.-
as established under the Safe
9.1.2
State Drinkinq Water Standards
California Drinking Water Standards establish enforceable
limits for substances that may affect health or aesthetic
qualities of water and apply to water delivered to customers.
The State's Primary standards are based on federal National
Interim primary Drinking Water Regulations. Currently, for
contaminants found at this site, California has promulgated MCLs
for those contaminants at the site as listed on Table 5.
9.1.3 Discharqe of Treated Effluent to Surface Water
Substantive National Pollutant Discharge Elimination system
(NPDES) permit requirements would apply to treated effluent
discharged to surface waters. These requirements would primarily
be effluent limitations and monitoring requirements. The
California Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB) regulates
NPDES discharges. Ambient Water Quality criteria and
technology-based standards are used by the RWQCB to set NPDES
effluent discharge limitations.
9.1.4 Air Emissions Standards
Any new source that emits toxic chemicals to .the atmosphere
at levels determined by the Bay Area Air Quality Management
District (BAAQMD) to be appropriate for review must have
authorization to construct and a permit to operate from the
BAAQMD. Although on-site treatment facilities are exempted by
CERCLA from the administrative requirements of the permitting
process, emission limits and monitoring requirements imposed by
the BAAQMD must be met.
Vapor phase GAC units for air-stripping towers must be used
if required by EPA OSWER Directive 9355.0-28 Control of Air
Emissions from Superfund Air Strippers at Superfund Groundwater
Sites. .
9.2 Location-SDecific ARARS
9.2.1 Fault Zone
. .
The Applied Materials site is not located within 61 meters
(200 feet) of a fault. Therefore, the fault zone requirements of
40 CFR Section 264.18(a) is satisfied.
18
-------
. - .,
9.2.2 Floodolain
A hazardous waste treatment facility located in a 100-year
floodplain must be designed, constructed, operated, and
maintained to prevent washout of any hazardous waste by a
100-year flood. This facility is located in the 100-year
floodplain of the San Tomas Aquino Creek drainage system.
9.2.3
California Resolution 68-16
Resolution 68-16 is California's "Statement of Policy With
Respect to Maintaining High Quality of Waters in California".
EPA regards Resolution 68-16 as criteria to establish ground
water cleanup levels. The policy requires maintenance of
existing water quality unless it is demonstrated that a change
will benefit the people of the state, will not unreasonably
affect beneficial uses of the water, and will not result in water
quality less than prescribed by other state policies.
A beneficial use of the ground water in the aquifer system
is drinking water. Establishing a cleanup level which maintains
this beneficial use would attain the requirements of Resolution
68-16.
9.3 Action-Soecific ARARs
No action-specific ARARs have been identified for this site.
9.4 To Be Considered criteria
In establishing selected' remedial alternatives, EPA
considers various procedures, criteria, advisories, and
resolutions. These "to be considered" criteria (TBCs) do not
carry the weight of ARARs, but are relevant to the cleanup of the
site. The following discussion presents selected criteria
relevant to the selection of remedial alternatives.
9.4.1
State Criteria for Groundwater Cleanuo
California's criteria for evaluating drinking water quality
and ground water cleanup are advisory Drinking Water Action
Levels and advisory Applied Action Levels respectively. These
criteria are presented in Table 5.
Drinking Water Action Levels are health-based concentration
limits set by the Department of Health Services (DHS) to limit
public exposure to substances not yet regulated by promulgated
standards.
Applied Action Levels (AALs) were developed by DHS for use
with the California guidance in the "site Mitigation Decision
'Tree". AALs are guidelines that DHS uses to evaluate the risk a
19
-------
- ~ ..., ~..- ._~_.~ - .
. . -. . -. -~. . . .... .... -..--.-...--
. . .' .
.'''''--.~-----_... 4#..:_~..._.
. :.. I - ..- -.' .. -, -" ..
site poses. While the DHS Applied Action Levels are not
promulgated standards and are not, therefore, ARARs, they have
been taken into consideration in developing cleanup standards for-
the site pursuant to the National contingency Plan (NCP).
10.
The Selected Remedv
Based upon consideration of the requirements of CERCLA, the
selected remedy is Alternative 2 which includes the following
components: 1) institutional constraints, 2) groundwater
monitoring, 3) pumping from existing extraction wells and 4)
treatment with existing air stripping systems and 5) discharge of
treated water to surface water under existing NPDES permit.
The goal of this remedial action is to restore groundwater
to its beneficial use. Based on information obtained during the
remedial investigation and on a careful analysis of all remedial
alternatives, EPA and the state of California believe that the
selected remedy will achieve this goal. It may become apparent,
during implementation or operation of the system, that
contaminant levels have ceased to decline and are remaining
constant at levels higher than the remediation goal, that goal
and/or the remedy may be reevaluated.
The selected remedy will include groundwater extraction and
treatment. The system's performance will be carefully monitored
on a regular basis anq adjusted as warranted by the performance
data collected during operation. Modifications may include:
c)
at individual wells where cleanup standards have
been attained, pumping may be discontinued;
alternative pumping at wells to eliminate stagnation
points
pulse pumping to allow aquifer equilibration and to
allow adsorbed contaminants to partition into ground
water; and
installation of additional extraction wells to
facilitate or accelerate cleanup of the contaminant
plume.
a)
d)
d)
The final cleanup levels (Table 6) a~~ calculated to result
in a total excess cancer risk of 8.3 X 10 and a total toxic
risk of less than 1.0 (Hazard Index).
20
-------
.- ~. ". t
. . ~, .... .' .-
Table 6
FINAL CLEANUP LEVELS
APPLIED MATERIALS, INC.
3050 BOWERS AVENUE BUILDING 1 facility
SANTA CLARA
Chemical
1,1-DCA
1,2-DCA
1,1-DCE
1,2-DCE
cis
trans
PCE
1,1,1-TCA
1,1,2-TCA
TCE
Freon 113
Freon 11
Chloroform
Vinyl chloride
Level (ppb or ua!l)
5
0.5
6
6
10
5
200
32
5
1,200
150
6
0.5
21
-------
11.
statutary Determinations
The selected remedy is protective of human health and the
environment in that contaminated groundwater will be treated to
at least maximum contaminant levels (MCLs), which fall within
EPA'~ acceptable carcinogenic risk range of one-in-a-million
(10- ) to one-in-ten-thousand (10-4) individual lifetime excess
cancers that may develop in a population. In addition, the
remedy complies with all federal and state ARARs. The selected
remedy is cost effective. The overall effectiveness of the
remedial action is proportional to its cost, in that it
represents a reasonable value for the cost. The selected remedy
will permanently and significantly reduce the toxicity, mobility,
or volume of the hazardous substances in the groundwater and will
utilize treatment of groundwater as a principal element.
r
22
-------
~e-NG1 ,z,/o/q()
~ cJIed:L fi ~I
~ tfM ~
~~ is: NO
. p~~ I.
fhl~ (5. CO u.u-f-
(;t ~ (.~.
Yehcrr~ .
,..
-------
3.
SUMMARIZED COMMENTS AN~ RESPONSES
1.
. .
Findina 2. (AMI) Request deleting methylene chloride and
vinyl chlorlde from the list of chemicals detected; the
detection of these chemicals is thought to be the result of
laboratory error. Also, delete the reference to neighboring
sites.
ResDonse bv RWOCB. Reference to the neighboring sites is
deleted, and the statement in question is rewritten as,
"Chloroform, a probable human carcinogen, was reported
episodically in onsite samples collected from 1983 through
-1986 and in 1988. Methylene chloride, a probable human
carcinogen, was reported one time, in 1985. Vinyl chloride,
a known human carcinoqen, was reported twice, once in 1983 and
once in 1985, in samples from two different source area
wells."
2.
The discharger has been requested to obtain a data verif-
ication report from the lab that performed the original GCMS
analysis and forward it to the RWQCB.
Findina 5. (SCVWD) It was reported that the water-bearing
deposits at the. site are generally divided into three
laterally traceable units as follows: A-zone at depths of
about 10 to 25 feet, B-zone at about 40 to 50 feet, and the
C-zone at a depth greater than 150 feet. It was not reported
that other B-zone aquifer units occur at depths below 50 feet
and above the C-zone, in the intervals of 60 to 80 feet and
110 to 130 feet. It would be appropriate that, at a minimum,
the B2-zone(60 to 80 feet deep) be tested for pollution.
The list of potential conduits for this site does not include
the Vernis Page well (350 feet total depth) which, according
to available information, was perforated in both the Band C
zones. The disposition of this well, installed in 1936, is not
known.
Res90nse ~v RWOCB. Staff requested the discharger to respond
to this comment. The discharger~s response indicates that it
is not justified to sample water-bearing materials in the
intervals suggested in this comment, because pollution seen
thus far in the B zone at this site is minimal. Staff agrees
but recognizes that future monitoring data may show. a rising
pollutant-concentration trend which could provide the
necessary justification.
Findinq 6. (AMI) Conclusion by RWQCB that the analytical
result of a sample of water collected from the extraction pit
I
2
-------
. . ... .. -
. after construction in 1985, which showed greater than 400 mq/l
total VOCs, may indicate the presence of a soil "hot spot" is
not supportable.
Response bv RWOCB. Board staff believes the analytical result
does indicate that a "hot spot" may have existed, and "hot
spots" may still exist. In support of this belief, staff makes
reference to the RI/FS Report prepared for AMI:
(1)
(2)
(3)
On page 44 it is stated, "The initial 1,1,1-
Trichloroethane concentration of 370,000 ppb (Figure
21) far exceeds the highest subsequent values
reported and may be anomalous. If accurate, this
suggests the presence of pockets of concentrated
VOCs in the pit area." Staff notes that there is
nothing of rcord to indicate that the analysis
referred to was fallacious.
On page 52 the following appears: "Given that the
former VOC source has been removed, the continued
presence and stability of VOC concentrations in the
wellAMl-1 vicinity indicates that significant
concentrations of VOCs are present that were not
detected in the soil sampling associated with the
tank excavation. n . .
The report also shows, by calculations, that the
amount of VOCs thus far removed is greater than the
amount thought. to have been present in the
subsurface originally, and. VOCsare still being
removed.
staff concludes that soil "hot spots" may be present, and if
they are, they are probably leaching VOCs into groundwater.
Findina 8. (AMI) Recommend adding the words, "in the absence
of cleanup", to the end of the last sentence in paragraph 3.
4.
In paragraph 7, third sentence, the words, "coul~ probably",
should be deleted and replaced with the word, "may".
Resconse by RWOCB. The recommended changes will be made. The
sentences, as revised, will read:
(Par.3) "---the discharger concluded that there probably
would be no health hazards associated with exposure to
non-carcinogenic chemicals, but there would be some risk
due to the presence of carcinogens, in the absence of
cleanup." .
(Par. 7) "These latter alternatives may attain cleanup
qoals in five to seven years."
3
-------
.'
7.
. ~ . - .
. --.. - .
5.
Findina 8. (SCVWD) One open-ended item that still needs
consideration is the additional. soils investigation ordered'
by the Board, with a report due in early March 1990.
Reseonse bv RWOCB. Staff anticipates that some significant
information resulting from this soil survey will be available
in the near future; however, the complete results of the
survey may not be available until February of 1990.
There are a number of Tasks assigned in the Tentative Order
which require the discharger to address soil pollution on the
site, beginning with an evaluation of all data and an
assessment of remaining soil pollution, through a proposal for
soil remediation if required, and culminating in the actual
soil remediation.
6.
Findina 9. (EPA) In item
"economically", on the first line.
ReSDonse bv RWOCB. The word "economically" has been deleted.
This does not imply that the Board does not consider economics
in its review of alternative Remedial Action Plans. For
example, the Order states elsewhere that the Final Remedial
Action Plan is cost-effective, and that the plan is
reasonable. In conformity with these other statements, the
part of Finding 9 in question is changed to read, "If it has
been determined, after a reasonable effort utilizing best
practicable treatment or ~ontrol, that,the primary objective
is not cost-effective and zero background concentration cannot
be achieved, then achieving drinking water quality at an
aggregate risk level not exceeding 1 X 10.' throughout the
source area and plume is an appropriate secondary goal for
this site."
b. ,
delete
the
word,
Findina 9. (AMI) In item e., we feel that it is highly
unlikely that a laboratory or field study of biodegradation
and/or transformation of onsite chemicals, directed at an
evaluation of the potential for the formation of vinyl
chloride and other chemicals will generate any' meaningful
conclusions. We do not foresee that any laboratory or field
experiments can ~ubstantially improve on the discussion of
1, 1, l-~CA degradation in the RI/FS Report (pages 66-67). Also,
we feel it is impractical to require confirmation of all
potential exposure pathways, since all are hypothe~ical and
impossible to confirm.
Subsequent to the above statement, the discharger has
recommended that a limited number of analyses (three) in
September, October, and November of 1989 be done on samples
from a source-area well to determine whether or not vinyl
chloride is present.
4
, .,
-------
---_..-
ResDonse bv RWOCB. Board staff is concerned about the possible
presence of vinyl chloride in S9ils and groundwater at this
site. Vinyl chloride is a known human carcinogen, with a 10'6
risk number. of 0.02 ppb. While the onsite presence of vinyl
chloride has been reported only twice and from two different
wells, staff has noted on records of analytical results that
the detection limit used when attempting to detect this
carcinogen near the source area and elsewhere (but not
everYWhere) frequently is above 1 ppb and often ranges from
5 to 100 ppb, a~d sometimes as high as 250 and 500 ppb. Staff
also notes the EPA concern, evidenced by the EPA procedure of
assuming that vinyl chloride is present in some concentration
if a known suite of antecedant chemicals has been detected
(see Comment 17). Staff does not believe that past analyses
have been entirely adequate for determining the presence or
absence of vinyl chloride at this site. Based on present
knowledge, staff does not discount the possibility that vinyl
chloride may be detected onsite in the future as a consequence
of chemical degradation or transformation.
Staff also recognizes that the comment does have some
validity, and is amenable to the recommendation made by the
discharger. Therefore, the requirement is revised to read as
follows:
e.
A review of the presence or potential presence of
vinyl chloride within the plume, including (1) the
existing sampling and analysis program directed at
establishing procedures that will consistently
utilize detection limits not to exceed 0~5 ppb, and
(2) chemicals identified onsite which may degrade
or transform into vinyl chloride.
The procedures of (1) should be repeated annually.
8.
A new task is assigned to cover this revised requirement.
Task 22, with a Completion Date of November 17, 1989, requires
the submittal of a technical report concerning the detection
of vinyl chloride.
Findina 10. (AMI} In paragraph 3, second sentence, it should
be not~d that the potential cancer risk only exists if there
is a completed exposure pathway and receptors. The presence
of a carcinogen alone does not necessarily create a.risk.
ResDonse bv RWOCB. If the exposure pathway was completed so
that humans could be exposed, staff would consider the risk
to be actual or existing, more than potential.
The sentence in question will be rewritten as: "When cancer-
causing substances are present and a threat of exposure to
5
-------
- . -" ..
9.'
10.
11.
. -. -~~_._. ---
- - -- - - - -"'._--~.'- -
"
.-- - - - ... - .
.-' . : ..- '" . ". -'.' . '.. . '.
these substances exists, a potential risk is present. There
is no "zero-risk" level associated with the threat of exposure
to carcinogens."
Findina 10." (AMI) In paragraph 5, suggest changing the first
sentence to read, "Even though the risk number of 3.5 X 10.4
resul ts from an extreme worst-case hypothetical consideration,
it and the the associated VOC residual concentrations expected
to be present at the source area thirty years in the future
are sufficient cause to pursue a remedial alternative other
than no-further-action". The no-further-action alternative is
not an acceptable recommended remedial action plan, nor is it
the plan proposed in this tentative site cleanup order.
Response bv RWOCB. The risk number of 3.5 X 10.' does not
result from an extreme worst-case hypothetical consideration.
A much greater risk number would be generated if the present
onsite maximum concentration of carcinogens were used in the
calculation, instead of a concentration projected 30 years
later.
staff will agree to rewrite the sentence as, "Even though the
risk number of 3.5 X 10.' results from a hypothetical
consideration, it and the associated VOC residual
concentrationse)q)ected to be present at the source area
thirty years in the future are sufficient cause to pursue a
remedial alternative other than no-further-action."
Findina 10. (AMI) Change the second sentence in paragraph
5 to read, "The VOC concentrations may be' reduced to, or
below, drinking water MCLs by remediation.", since the results
of remediation are not certain.
ResDonse by RWOCB. The sentence will be changed to read, liThe
VOC concentrations can be further reduced, and may be reduced
to, or below, drinking water MCLs, by remediation."
Findina 10. (AMI) Sentence 3 of the same paragraph, "The
postulated residual VOC concentrations, including carcinogens,
30 years in the future reinforces the conclusion that source-
area soil remediation will be necessary for protection of
public health and the environment.", should be deleted since
Alternative 4A, pump and treat, is projected to reduce VOC
concentrations to drinking water standards within less than
half of the thirty years ci ted in the no-further-action
alternative projection. We object to the existing wording
which states that soil remediation is necessary to protect
public health and the environment, when equal protection can
be achieved by groundwater pumping and treatment under
Alternative 4A.
6
-------
12.
" .
ResDonse bv RWOCB. Alternative 4A is projected to reduce voc
concentrations to drinking water standards, which, at an
aggregate cancer-risk number not to exceed 1 X 10.4, is the
secondary 'cleanup objective at this site. The Drima~
obj ecti ve is a return to background qual i ty , which is not
projected by Alternative 4A. Further, it is not clearly stated
in the alternative that a reduction of the TCA concentration
will result in significant reductions of the concentrations
of carcinogens. .Staff does not expect Alternative 4A to result
in a return to background water quality in more than 30 years
of pump and treat, based on the projection provided by Figure
40 in the RI/FS Report. For the protection of public health,
the desireable cleanup goal for all carcinogens is zero
concentration. Even though the secondary obj ecti ve is to
achieve drinking water quality at an appropriate risk number
of 1 X 10.', the Regional Board expects the discharger to make
a good-faith effort to reduce VOC concentrations to
background, or levels approaching background; i.e., attempt
to achieve the primary objective throughout the site and in
the identified offsite wells.
staff does not believe the intent of the referenced sentence
should be deleted. The sentence will be rewritten as, "The
postulated residual VOC concentrations, including carcinogens,
30 years in the. future indicates that source-area soil
remediation may be necessary in order to achieve background
levels and to restore groundwater to its original use-
suitability within a.reasonable time frame; and, if required,
to provide an extra margin of .protection to human health and
the environment. .
Findina 10. (EPA) The Hazard Index is no longer being used
by the EPA. This finding should reflect the new approach
being developed by the EPA.
If an alternative to the Hazard Index (HI) is not used, then
the site HI should be described more fully,' and the cleanup
levels should be determined so that the sum' of the non-
carcinogen ratios does not exceed the value of One. Similarly,
the risk number for all carcinogens at the cleanup level
should be summed, and the sum should be within the 10.' to
10.1 range. .-
,.
ResDonse bv RWOCB. The methodology of the new approach under
development is not yet available, and the data necessary to
implement the use of this methodology may not be available
for this site. Staff believes it is not feasible to use the
new methodology at this site; therefore, the HI was used by
Board staff, and required changes in some of the cleanup
levels applied in the secondary cleanup objective.
7
-------
. . - .....
i!
"
13.
----_._--...
- .~-_._... ..0 .
- - _. .
Self-Monitorina Program. (AMI) We object to sampling and
analyses of all onsite and offsite wells quarterly. We believe
that the sampling frequency .~hould be reduced to twice
annually for monitoring wells during the period while cleanup
goals are being achieved and during the stability period. The
considerable additional expense of increased sampling and
analysis seems to have little benefit. We find the proposed
sampling plan to be unacceptable and recommend implementation
of the sampling plan we proposed in the draft RIfFS.
ReSDonse bv RWOCB. RWQCB staff are interested in the
maintainance of a cost-effective monitoring program which is
responsive to identified purposes and data needs; staff
. recognizes the importance of economics as one factor
influencing monitoring frequency, but finds that other factors
are just as important, as discussed next.
Previous monitoring has identified pollutants and described
the plume and water quality trends. Monitoring began on a
more-frequent schedule but became routinely a. schedule of only
three sampl ing events per year. For the purposes of the
Tentative Order, staff was of the opinion that a quarterly
schedule (four sampling events per year) should be
implemented. AMI wanted a biannual schedule (two sampling
events per year). Staff recommended a revised schedule:
continue the existing program of three samples per year until
cleanup goals are achieved, then change to quarterly for at
least one year to prove stability.
Staff believes fewer than three samples per year will not be
responsive to purposes and data needs. Staff views the present
purposes of the program to include:
a.
Protection of offsite groundwater users by providing
early warning that pollutants could be descending
vertically towards the C aquifer, which would be
indicated by data from onsite B zone wells.
Protection of downqradient A and B zone aquifers by
providing early warning that excessive concentrations of
pollutants are moving offsite, indicated by data from
onsite boun~ary wells.
b.
c.
Trackinq the plume and recording changes in groundwater
quality, includinq those resulting from implemented
cleanup actions such as soil remediation.
Determininq that cleanup goals have been achieved and any
potential threat to public health and the enviJ::onment has
been alleviated.
d.
8
-------
14.
15.
16.
17.
,. .. .., ~
_...". . .'
- - --
OAt the present time, staff will recommend a continuation of
the existinqmonitorinq frequency and not recommend a biannual
samplinq schedule for all wells ~n this site.
General Comment. (EPA) There appears to be ambiqui ty
concerninq when cleanup could be achieved by pump and treat.
The Tentative Order states 12 years, 15 years, and 7 years at
three different places.
Response bv RWOCB. Staff will make revisions to remove any
ambiquity. The discharqer infers that cleanup of TCA to its
MCL can be achieved in 12 years. By this same inference,
1,1-DCA will not be reduced to its AL in this time period.
General Comment. (EPA) The phrase, "cleanup qoal", is
preferred over "cleanup level" unless numerical levels are
stated.
"Cleanup qoal" will be used where
Response bv RWOCB.
appropriate.
General Comment. (RWQCB) 1,1-Dichloroethane, formerly
reported as non-carcinoqenic, is now (as of April, 1989)
considered by the EPA to be a possible or probable human
carcinoqen.
The Tentative Order will be revised
Res-ponse by RWOCB.
accordinqly.
General Comment. (RWQCB) Because of the known potential
deqradation of some of the pollutants at this site to vinyl
chloride, a known human carcinoqen, vinyl chloride should be
assumed to be present at half- the detection limit. This
information was provided in the EPA's review comments of the
risk assessment portion of the most recent edi tion of the
IU/FS Report.
Response by RWOCB. Staff will review the applicability of
this information, and use it as may be appropriate for this
site, based on an evaluation of data obtained from the three
consecutive vinyl chloride samples to be made later this year
using the 0.5 ppb detection limit.
9
-------
-"_____0_'__---:--_-- ..-O_---_u_-----.----.-.-------.----..--- ..'........_- -_O'--_."_"::_-':"._--'R~:.""'---_O.&. . -- -_#._. .
... .. - -.
..
.~.rATI OP CALl'ORHIA
CAUF9RNIA REGIONAL WATER QUAUTY CONTROL BOARD
IAN FRANCISCO BAY REGION
1800 tWUUION ITRUT,8UITIM
. OA..'U.AND, CAMl11 .
GIORGE DEUK"~ Oow"*
..... .... c:.a .tS
. ......
.
September 7, 1990
File No. 2189.8152 (AJM)
Mr. James J. DeLong
Director, Legal Affairs
Applied Materials, Inc.
P. O. Box 58039
Santa Clara, CA 95052
Subject:
Additional Comments Prepared by Veiss Associates Concerning Proposed
Revised Tentative Order, Amending Order No. 89-167 for the Building
1 Facility at 3050 Bowers Avenue in Santa Clara
Dear Mr. DeLong:
This will acknowledge receipt of your Fax Letter of September 6, 1990, concerning
the subject matter. Ve have accepted the submitted suggestions and incorporated
all of them into the Revised Tentative Order. Because these comments apply to
. the monitoring program, the Self-Monitoring Program for the site also requires
revision.
Due to the nature of written comments froll Applied Materials and verbal comments
from the ErA, it seell8 less confusing to prepare a revised Order than to propose
numerous amendments. You will receive a tbicker package for tbe proposed final
Order than you received previously for the Order initially proposed last month.
If you have subsequent comments, please submit them verbally to A. J. Mancini
at (415) 464~0825 as 800n as possible.
. Sincerely,
itr<.
eve Morse, Chief
South Bay Toxics Division
cc:
Jerry Scl10ening
Applied Materials
Patti CoIU.ns
EPA Region IX (8-3-6)
LiDdee Glick
Veiss Associates
-,--
- - ...-.. - ..
0'__- ...,. -...
-- ...- - . - '..' --'--. . - -. ...
-------
"--.... .'. '. .
APPLIED MATERIALS
'/1// /1,/
,..... "- -.
"...:r--
'Q
September 6, 1990 . /
Mr. Anthony J. Mancini.
Regional Water Quality Control Board
San Francisco Bay Region
1800 Harrison Street, Suite 700
Oakland, CA 94612
. -"-.
Dear Tony:
I am forwarding a letter which Lindee Glick of Weiss Associates
wrote to Jerry Schoening dated August 28, 1990. Applied Materials
endorses Lindee' s comments and requests that you accept these
suggestions for revisions to the Applied Materials BU:Llding 1
proposed Order. .
sinc7:. (;[L!_/r
J~e\, ;. Der;- (/.
D1retor, Legal Affa1rs
Enclosure
cc:
Lindee L. Glick
Weiss.Associates
Kip Edwards
Orrick, Herrington & Sutcliffe
...
Jerry Schoening
149JD.90
3050 Bowers Avenue
Santa Clara, California 95054
Phone: (408) 727-5555
FAX: (408) 496-6421
Telex: 34-6332
Mailing Address:
Applied Materials. Inc.
P.O. Box 58039
Santa Clara, California 95052
-------
,
.. .
. . ..'
"... ~.., ,. .
~ f~
WEISS ASSOCIATES
Fax: 415.547.5043
Phone: 415.547.5420
~
Geologic and Enuironmental Services
5500 Shel1mound Street, Emcryvilte, CA 94608
August 28, 1990 "
Mr. Jerry Shoening. Corporate Manager
Safety and Health
Applied Materials. Inc.
3050 Bowers A venue
Santa Clara, CA 95054
Re: Revisions to Applied Matedals
Building I Site Cleanup Order
Dear Mr. Shoening:
This Jetter provides Weiss Associates suggestions for revisions to the Applied Materials
Building 1 Facility Order dated September 21, "1989 and amended by the Notice of Tentative
Order dated August I, 1990 issued by ~he California Regional Water Quality Control Board -
San Francisco Bay Region (WQCB).
Irt the order dated September 21,1989, Provision 6 states that a quarterly report witl be
submitted every three n'1onths beginning on February 15 (subscq\.!ent dates being May 15,
August IS, November 15, and February 15 of each year). It is also stated that the first
quarterly report for each calendar year shall provide a cross section or geologic map describing
the bydrogeologi~setting. Provision 7 states that an annual report be submiued on February
15 evaluating theprogrc:ss of cleanup measures. .
...
As has occurred in the past, Quarterly monitoring reports are submitted on a different
schedule than out1in~d above, also the annual report including fourth qU:lrtcr results, has been
accepted as a substitute for the fourth quarter technical monitoring report. We propose a new
sch~dule for report submiual that will reflect the most current data available. Because ground
water is sampled tfiannuaUy, we propose triannu:!l reports based on this data. Ground water
sampling occurs in J3nuar)', May, and September, and accordingly, reporls could be submiued
. .
co the WQCB on March 15, July IS, and November 15 of each calendar year. It is also proposed
th:H the: March 15 report witt be the annual report detailing: 1) 311 of the" data from the
prc,/ious c
-------
...~ ~
~~
: Jerry Shoc:ning
August 28, 1990
2
WEISS ASSOC/A TES IIJ1I
. .
section will be included in this annual report.
. -
The Notice of Tentative Order datcd August I, 1990 an1cnds Provision 6 with the
. '
requirement of isoconcentration maps of I,I,I-TCA, I,I-DCA, and'I,I-DCE in cach technical
monitoring report showing an isoconccntration contour of the clcanup g031. Due to the small
number of data points, and the present concentrations of l,J-DCA and I,t-DCE gcnerally
greater that 10 jJg/L, there are not enough constraints to realistically plot the cleanup goal
isoeontour bctween the 10 pg/L contour and nondetcetablc VQCs. The isoconcentration maps
will be provided in each monitoring report as proposed in the Notice of Tcntativc Order, but
the isoconcentration contour (or the cleanup goal should not necessarily be required, but
instead we select isoconccntration contours that most acCurately depict the diita. When
concentrations reach levels where we can reasonably define the cleanup goal contour, this will
be included in the map.
In addition. Provision 2: Tasks 6 and 7, require a soil cleanup evaluation report and soil'
cleanup proposal report, respectively. These two tasks overlap in content and would be more
appropriately combined into on~ report. We request that the combined report is submitted by
January 15, J99J. At the suggestion of the WQCB. a letter report presenting the borings (ogs
and analytical soil data from additional borings at Applied Materials Building I will be
submitted by November 2, t990.
We hope you find these suggcstions beneficial. If you have any Questions please call me
or Richard Weiss.
.'
Sincerely,
Weiss Associatc,s
V~.V~~/J
Lindce L. Glick
Project Geologist
LlG:js
D :\ALL \169AM\J69UAtJO. WP
"' "
------
U' . u ~'-'~'U"_.' ~ ..~,..__._.._.~---"~-~- -- -',
. . 'u".- ~.n.. '_.-~
-------
.i
.1
--... .-. -..---.-.----
....---.-...-
~ .
\ .
STATE OF CAUFORNIA
GEORGE DEUKMEJIAN, GovG~l'Ior
. CALIFORNIA REGIONAL WATER QUAUTY CONTROL BOARD
~SAN FRANCISCO BAY REGION
1800 HARRISON STREET, SUITE 700
OAKlAND, CA 84812
....: AIM CDIIe ."
""1511
~
August 28, 1990
File No. 2189.8152 (AJM)
Mr. Jerry Schoening
Corporate Hanager, Safety and Health
Applied Materials, Inc.
P. O. Box 58039
Santa Clara, CA 95052 .
Subject:
Response to Applied Materials' Comments Regarding the Proposed
Tentative Order and Staff Report: Your Fax Letter Dated August 7,
1990
Dear Mr. Schoening:
Copies of your letter were made available to Members of the Regional Board for
the regular Board Mee ting of Augus t 15, but. wi thout any response by Board staff.
Copies of this letter will be provided to the Board preparatory to the Board
\
Meeting scheduled for Sept~mber 19, 1990. Our responses are made in the sequence
of the comments in your letter.
1.
We acknowledge previous correspondence in which the term "proactive manner"
is used. We don't know what. is meant by that term; a previous letter
suggested proposed language 1f Finding 6 were to be amended, and also for
Finding 2. We did not then propose amending either Finding 2 or 6. However,
inasmuch as you have requested a revision in your letter of 08/07/90, we
reviewed both Findings for possible revision. The suggested language is
not appropriate for Finding 2: this Finding dates the initial discovery
of VOCs in groundwater at the site, identifies the pollutants detected,
and gives analytical results measured in 1989.
Finding 6 includes a brief history of cleanup activities, which is amenable
to slight revision. We propose amending Finding 6 by adding, at the
beginning, the following new first paragraph:
6.
Interim Actions. On its own volition, AM in November 1983 installed
~monitoring well downgradient of a nest of three underground tanks
on the west side of Building 1. When VOCs were detected in
groundwater by this well AM voluntarily began an investigative
. program and has conducted site investigations and remedial actions,
in cooperation with the Regional Board, since that time.
The remainder of the Finding is unchanged other than the original first
paragraph becoming the second paragraph, and the rest being in sequence
after this paragraph.
1
-------
.~.- -_._.._--~_.. ---..... .-.--. . -.-.. _.. . . ..- -. --._-----
.- - ---- - -....--..--.-.--.--..u -.- ....-
-------------------.'.-'.'-.... ..----
2.
Finding 5 in the Amended Order (AO) will be revised to read as follows:
5.
Tasks 6 and 7 related to soil cleanup evaluation and soil cleanup
proposal have not been completed as required by the current Order.
Because Task 5 showed that additional soil investigation was
required, Task 5 was not completed until approximately ten weeks
after its due date, and .therefore Task 6 could not be completed by
its due date of February 28, 1990. Board staff concurred in delays
for completion of Tasks 5 and 6 in order to allow time for a more
complete assessment required by Task 5 and provide better information
for use in the completion of Task 6.
The completion of Task 7, with an original due date of March 16,
1990, is sequential following Task 6. Since Task 6 is delayed, Task
7 is also delayed and therefore has not been completed. Board staff
..
concurred in a delay for completion of Task 7. A soil remediation
system most likely will not be constructed and/or implemented as
required in Task 8 and the dates for completion of other Tasks
probably will not be met. Completion dates, with- Board staff
concurrence, are changed as shown herein. .
3.
Your comments shown as "Finding 8, page 2" are wide-ranging in scope; we
will address part of this comment by revising Finding 7 (AO) , by adding
at the end, a new sentence which reads:
The discharger states that the cleanup time for extraction alone may
or may not be improved by some excavation of the source materials.
In Finding 8 we will revise the portion within the parentheses to read:
(50 years, length for Alternative 4, pump-and-treat, estimated for
purposes of comparison by AM)
Your comments show that AM and Board staff still are not in complete
agreement concerning soil remediation. We agree that the linear model is
not dependably accurate. The model originally told you that groundwater
cleanup in the source area could be accomplished in about 12 years (for
TCA); now it tells you that cleanup of TCA may take as long as 20 years
and cleanup of all VOCs may take much longer. According to what the EPA
has determined, the time actually required to achieve cleanup goals is
greater than the time extrapolaJ:ed from a linear model, and may be
considerably greater because the rate at which VOCs are removed by pump-
and-treat declines over time, and pumping becomes less efficient;
increasing the rate of groundwater pumping does not necessarily produce
a similar increase in VOCs removed. Other extraction.techniques that may
be implemented will increase the time required to reach cleanup goals. If
your linear model shows that cleanup goals might be reached in 53 years,
Board staff intuitively reasons that the time required to attain this goal
will be longer than 53 years.
2
-------
..
--"......_- - -.-
.
.~
-----.-.--. --.---.
As stated in your letter, the model output did include a range of possible
times and not just a maximum time of 50 years. The report that you
submitted to the Board uses the high end of the range when it compares
alternatives, because (according to the report) it is suspected that it
will take a significant amount of time for VOCs to reach cleanup goals.
We. agree that pump-and-treat alone will take a significant amount of time
to reach cleanup goals.
Your comment touches on another facet of this subject: VOC adsorption by
soils throughout the length of the plume. You state that soils that have
adsorbed VOCs exist throughout the length of the plume and not only at the
source. The soil surveys completed by AM have been limited in areal extent,
in and near the source area. The results of these surveys cannot be used
to describe the full length of the plume without additional documentation.
The report of 07/25/90 uses the history of extraction at Well 5E to
illustrate that there is a difference between the source area and the
downgradient area, and the model predicts a 30 , reduction in ~e time for
VOC cleanup to MCLs if the source is removed, based on extraction at Yell
5E. The recently submit.ted report does not indicate or imply that VOC
adsorption throughout the plume is a significant factor to b~ considered.
Staff does not agree that the best solution is to continue pump-and-treat
for an indefinite period while more data are being collected for the linear
model. Ye propose to monitor the extraction process closely and evaluate
the potential for accelerating groundwater remediation. through practical
methods such as source soil removal if an opportunity to do so arises. In
the interim it appears that AM has an opportunity to develop another model
and/or collect additional information to support a new or modified approach
if AM desires to do so. .
4.
Page 4, first paragraph: the report of 07/25/90 puts more credance in the
high end of the range and we agree. As referred to elsewhere in this
letter, EPA's review of historical records of pump-and-treat projects shows
that the time actually required to achieve cleanup goals (MCLs) in most
cases is greater than the time predicted by a linear model such as the one
developed by AM.
5.
Page 4, part b. second paragraph: There is a 8typO" in the Tentative Order
- this should be part c. Staff believes that 50 years may not be adequate
because the time extrapolated from the linear model, based on EPA's study,
is less than the ti~e actually required.to achieve MCL cleanup goals. This
statement will be rewritten to read:
Board staff believes that, without some soil removal, even a period
of 50 years may not be adequate for extraction alone, to achieve
cleanup goals.
6.
Staff Report (Appendix B), page 9, second paragraph: Board staff has not
been provided with information that shows VOCs to be distributed in the
fine-grained sediments adjacent to the A-zone throughout the length of the
plUme. As stated earlier in this letter, we agree with the tentative
3
-------
- . - .~_~-I . - ----- .-
. .-..--."'. .".- ....... _.~ ....J.-..-""
. .'
- ..... ~... .;.. ..: ..-:..... . ~ .
.. ~ -.
7.
approach taken in the report submitted by AM which points out the
difference in pollution in the source area from that ~n downgradient areas.
Staff Report .Conclusion" (stated as a belief): Staff believes that soil
removal combined with groundwater extraction will reasonably accelerate
VOC removal at reasonable costs. This appears logical to us, especially
if current operations at Building I are phased out in the near future.
If you have any questions about this letter please contact A.J. Mancini at (415)
464-0825.
Sincerely,
Steve Korse, Chief
South Bay Toxics Division
cc:
Patti Collins, EPA IX
Tom Iwamura. SCVWD
Howard Hatayama, DHS/TSCD
Lee Esquibel, SCCHD
....
4
-------
--.-.-.-- ._-_:. -----' -'- --. --. _.- .
~.- _. -.---.- -- ......-.~ ~... --H
'. - . : .-....'. - '..' -.' - .'. .'. ..' .
. '-;)('/
.
APPLJED MATElUALS INC.
E~LOYEE DEVELOPMENT - SANTA CLARA
. .
TELEPHO~"E: 408-748-S747
PACSIMILB: 408.733-3~38
FACSIMILE
I .
I
~/)~'J
( . I
") ,,(.;).
I ..
. ~.-
. "\ \. """
.
.
1'0~
~ en.. '/\. ~ t' -1'1 \ .
~~ ~~1\.. C S
9f~lo n \
( fl I ~-.1 '1.b it-- )'3 (g
l.!f 1 'S'.) q '7"3 eo:;,- 7 ~ i
. .
-=t :L -q - :).. ~ ~.~
If
(pLEASB PRINT)
1EXT:
.,
.
SENDER:
~
J ""t....',. Y'" ,)
. /
.
'$~.b..9..f. t1i f}J
BY:~6
DA1E: J /:; 1'10
.
FAX LOG .
/
-------
----;--_. "_----~_'_'_------_"-'---'-------'.7""- -~ ~'~"-"'._----"---_.-_' -~--~ ..:..'\._..' ..1':""'-','
.. ".'.~.
. ""- ~.
. '\(PUED MATERIALS
..
August 7, 1990
California Regional Wat=" Quality Control Board
San Francisco Bay RePOI! .
1800 HmriSOD Street, Saite 700
Oakland. CA 94612
Attention: Mr. A. Mandai
Dear Mr. Mancini:
A
. This letter. is to provide Applied Materials comments regarding the
. Notice of Tentative Order dated August I. 1990.and the attached
. appeD~ces to that ord~r.
In previous cOITespondcnce from our attomey i.D May regarding this
order revision, we reqnested a revision 10 findings 2 and 6 10 reflect
the proactive manner in which Applicd Materials has handled the
: site since its discovery by Applied. The proposed order revision does
not include any of this language. Please make the revisions as
req ues ted.
APPENDIX A
rmding S should- be changed to provide a brief explanation of the
reasons for the items that "have Dot beeD completed as required.. II
The board s~ concmrence with the non-completion under the
circumstances should also ~ DOted. .
Fmding 8. page 2: the time estlmJlted to obtain complete cleanap to
the MCLs was based on a model that is Dot dependably accurate duc
to the short time that data has been takcD for input to the modcl.
The model output ~aIso included a range of 'possible times DClt Just the
mJly;mum time you stated as SO years. The ~canup time for
extraction alone may or may Dot. be impro~ by some excavation of
the source materlals. It is likely that the time improvement, if any.
would beminfmal because the .oils that have adsorbed VOCs in fine-
grained sediments exist throughout the leDgth of the plume Dot only
at the source. Because of this situation and the Hmited data that
~05a B:Mrs kern...
&tr.a Cbrz. ~!fomIz fS054
P.I:II'I: (408) 727-;555
jau:~
MaIling Addr8a:
~1ie4 MaIIrIa1s, Inc.
p.o. lax 5803i
&1nt.J en. CIIIfomi&t8052
-------
.._.._.~._-_.._-_..-.-._- ----.
"'4'_--.-:--..~,_........ ._---p.._:"."'_;',_~.",':-_-_. _..~'_. :..:._.. .. .. -
a p. .. . . -
~.
<.
'..
exists, the best soludon is to continue extractiou and mouitoriDg of
the site until sufficient data" is obtained to more accurately determine
the' time to cleanup for the extraction-only alternative. At such time
as the data is moro conclusive. the next. opportunity to do excavatioa
will, be ,taken if the analysis indicateS that excavation will be
effective.
.
Page, 4. first paragraph: there is DO evidence to support the
statement that -within a reasonable period of. time cannot be
: determined with exactness j)ut ,wears m\nimaJ.:.. The range of time
developed in the modol all have the same probability of happening
based on any f3.Ctl1a1 data. - it is only a Judgoment that the time may
be at the long or short end of the range. It would be m~ accurate
to statc the ranges found. .
.
Page 4. part b. second paragraph: The last sentence again states that
"without some soil removal, even a period of 50 years may not be .
adequate for extraction alone to achieve cleanup goals.. 'I'hc same
. argument applies .. we have insufficient data to draw any conclusion
at this time, therefore a statement like this should Dot be made.
APPENDIX B
Page 9. second paragraph: This paragraph a~d the following ODC on
conclusions both ignore that the remaining VOCs are distributed in
the fine-grained sediments adjacent t~ the A zono ~
Jenith of the P1.wD.c. and that excavation of the source soils may
or may not bave any sipJficant effect on tho clcanup time.
The conclusion that excavation .will "reasonably accelerate VOC
removal at reasonable costs" is aD opinion. Dot a logically drawn
conclusion based on any facmal data.. This should be pointed out and
a statemcnt should be made regaxding the need for ongoing data
collection and analysis prior to making any such conclusion.
r
-------
I Thank you far )'our attendon to these c:omJneDts. This submittal to
the board sho~d be as accurate as possible 10 they are properly'
informed of all the 1IDccrtaintiC$ of the site and also of o~ intention
to continue to analyze data and pursue cleanup in the most effective
ways.
Yours,
rry Schoening
Corporate Manager. Safety and Health.
I'
...
-~~~-
-- - -_..~c~~~._---
",
.' -~~- -~~-_.,~--- -~-~~-----:-----:-
. .
-------
. ....,' ....-. --- .-. ..- _.. .. .-. . -..
'. . "'..' ~ . 0'. . . -..
"..
~ ,Page No. .
07/05/89
** Date:
Author:
'it * 08/01/67
Ca Dept. Water
Resources
1
Applied Materials Buildinq 1
Administrative Record
Table of Contents
Volume Iz Up to and including 1983
Recipient:
Contents:
IOSSSASSOCMmI VUI
Bulletin 118-1 Evaluation of
Ground Water Resources, South Bay
Appendix A: Geology
..'
,.
Volume:
I B
-------
Page No.
07/05/89
.. Date:
Author:
.. 01/16/84
J. DeLong, AM
1
- """"""'n?S JIM
Applied Materials Building '1
Administrative Record
Table of Contents
Volume II: 1984
Recipient:
D. Eisenberg,
RWQCB
.. 02/03/84
R.B. Weiss,WA J. DeLong, AM
.. 02/29/84 ,,'
R.B. Weiss,.WA J. Lam, RWQCB
~
.. 03/12/84
R.B. Weiss, WA J. Lam, RWQCB
.. 04/18/84
W.A. McIlvride, J. Lam, RWQCB
WA
Contents:
Volume:
Results of 80il and water sampling II A
at AM Buildings 1,7, and 8, draft
well construction and lithologic
lo~ .
Proposal for Phase II Ground water II B
monitoring Program at AM-l
Description of water sampling
techniques for Volatile Organic
Compounds
Letter documenting proposed well
locations at AM-1
Request for WQCB to contact
repre.entatives of adjoining
property and to provide written
approva~ of Phase II program
.. 04/24/84
. D. Dalke, RWQCB R.B. Weiss, WA Recommendations concerning ground
water sampling techniques
.. 08/21/84
J. DeLong, AM
,-...
.. 08/27/84
R.C. Johnson,
u.s. EPA
J. Lam, RWQCB
Letter forwarding analytical
results of water samples taken to
date at AM-1
Proposed NPL Listing,
Documentation for Hazard Ranking
II A
II A
II A
II A
II A
II P
-------
---.------- -~- ._--_.._-~--_.__.. ~---.- .
,<
;>
.,-
.page No.
. C7/05/89
** Date:
Author:
** 09/11/84
Weiss
Associates
** 09/18/84
J. DeLong, AM
- -_.~. -.. - - ..
2
_......~-_............ n'. . ~-.' - .
IOSSS ASSOCIAJES IIUI
Applied Materials Building 1
Administrative Record
Table of Contents
Volume II: 1984
Recipient:
J. Schoening,
AM
J. Lam, RWQCB
** 10/10/84
J. DeLong, AM ,. J. Lam, RWQCB
;.
** 10/15/84
Stoner
Laboratories
** 11/19/84
J. DeLong, AM
** 12/05/84
R. McMurtry,
RWQCB
** 12/13/84
J. DeLong, AM
City of Santa
Clara
A.W. Olivieri,
RWQCB
J. DeLong, AM
,.
Contents:
Ground Water Protection Study
Phaae III Proposal
Letter forwarding AM Phase III
Proposal, dated sept. 11, 1984
Proposal to conduct hydraulic
testing and commence ground water
estraction from wells AMl-5 and
extraction pit
Analytical Report
EPA 601 Analysis of CSC-24
Comments concerning 205J study,
caS8 aummary
.
Responses to proposed work plan
and request for description of
wastewater treatment system
Volume:
II B
II A
II A
II E
II A
II A
R.H. Wyer, U.S. Comments on proposed ammendment to II A
EPA National Priorities List
** 12/21/84
R.B. Weiss, WA J. Lam, RWQCB
..
.
,
Letter forwarding results of water II A
analyses from interim treatment
aystem
-------
02/23/90
** Date:
Author:
Applied Materials Building 1
Administrative Record
Table of Contents
Volume III: 1985
Recipient:
Contents:
WEJSS ASSOCIATES
Volume
** 01/29/85
W.A. Mcllvride, E. Basanese,
HA Avantek
Letter requesting permission to
measure water levels and sample
wells at 3175 Bowers Avenue
III A
H.A. Mcllvride, A.H. Olivieri, Letter noting errors in November ill A
HA RHQCB 19, 1984 letter from J. DeLong of
AM to A.H. Olivieri
** 02/06/85
J. Schoening, J. Lam, RWQCB
AM
Application for NPDES Permit
III A
** 03/05/85
R.B. James,
RWQCB
J. Schoening,
AM
Hritten Approval of Applied
Materials Interim On-site
Groundwater Remedial Action Plan
III A
** 03/21/85
J. Schoening, A.H. Olivieri, 205j Study Report Corrections
AM RHQCB
III A
** 04/25/85
HeiBS
Associates
SCVHD
Approved Hater Hell Construction III E
Application forms for all AM wells
** 04/29/85
H.A. Mcllvride, R. Marek, RHQCB Results of water analyses from
HA AM-1
III E
** 04/30/85
R.B. James,
RHQCB
R.H. Marek,
RHQCB
R.B. James,
RHQCB
J. Schoening,
AM
E. Anton, Ca
HRCB
J. Schoening,
AM
Tentative Order (NPDES Permit)
III E
Transmittal of Application for
NPDES Permit
III A
Notice of Tentative Order (NPDES) III A
-------
02/23/90 ,
Applied Materials Building 1 ness ASSOCIATES
Administrative Record ness ASSOCIATES
Table of Contents
Volume ill: 1985
** Date:
Author: Recipient: Contents: Volume:
** 05/13/85
B. Hunter, OF6, R.B. James, Recommendation for effluent limits III A
Region 3 RWQCB on discharges as interim criteria
** 05/20/85
J. Schoening, R.B. James, Comments regarding tentative order III A
AM RWQCB (NPDES Permit) for AM
** 05/21/85
H.A. Mcllvride, R. Marek, RWQCB Draft cross-sections, location map III A
HA and lithologic log for AMI-SB
** 06/06/85
R.K. McMurtry, J. Schoening, Rationale for requiring receiving III A
RWQCB AM water monitoring in
i • • self-monitoring program
** 06/17/85
K.H. L. Kolb, WQCB Comments concerning AM NPDES III A
Sutherland, Permit
U.S.EPA
** 06/19/85
RWQCB Applied ' Waste Discharge Order §85-70 ill E
Materials
RWQCB Executive Officer Summary Report III E
** 08/13/85
R.K. McMurtry, J. Schoening, Approval for Groundwater III A
RWQCB " AM Extraction Monitoring Program
** 08/14/85
J. Schoening, R. Marek, RWQCB Monthly Monitoring Report III D
AM
-------
02/23/90
.* Date:
Author:
.. 08/21/85
Weiss
Associates
'Applied Materials Building 1
. . Administrative Record
Table ot Contents
Volume III: 1985
_55 AIISOC:&
-------
*• Page No.
07/05/89
WEISS ASSOCIATES
** Date:
Author:
Applied Materials Building 1
Administrative Record
Table of Contents
Volume XV: 1986
Recipient:
Contents:
Volume:
** 01/28/86
Weiss
Associates
J. Schoening,
AM
1985 Year-End Ground Hater
Monitoring Report
iv c
** 01/30/86
Weiss '
Associates
J. Schoening,
AM
Ground Water Protection Study and IV B
Proposed Remedial Action
Alternatives
** 04/19/86 ..
Arthur & Orum SCVWD
Drilling Co
Water Well Drillers Report for
Well Destruction
06S1W28K01
IV E
** 04/21/86
L. Bejar, SCVWD Applied
Materials
Well Destruction Completion Notice IV E
06S1W28K01
** 07/02/86
J. Schoening, R.B. James, Request for extension of due date IV A
AM RWQCB for Quality Assurance Project Plan
** 07/09/86
S. Morse, RWQCB J. Schoening,
AM
Request for proposal to IV A
investigate potential for veils to
serve as migration conduits in the
AM-1 vicinity
** 07/18/86
S. Morse, RWQCB J. Schoening,
AM
Tentative Order (Waste Discharge IV E
Requirements)
** 09/05/86
H. Seraydarian, R. James, RWQCB Comments on tentative Waste
U.S. EPA Discharge Requirements
IV A
** 09/17/86
RWQCB
Applied
Materials
Waste Discharge Order I 86-71
IV E
-------
Page No.
07/05/89
** Date:
Author:
RWQCB
** 09/19/86
weiss
Associates
** 10/30/86
R.W. Harek,
RWQCB
2
HISS ASSOCIA7ES Ji1'I
.'
.-
Applied Haterials Building 1
Administrative Record
Table of Contents
Volume IV: 1986
Recipient:
Contents:
Volume:
RWQCB
~
Executive Officer Summary Report
IV E
Quality Assurance/Quality Control
Plan For The Geohydrologic
Investigation and Remedial Action
Program at AM-1
J. SChoening,
AM
IV E
Transmittal ef AM QA/QC Plan
IV A
J. Dunn, U.S.
," EPA .
, .
** 12/24/86
T. stumph, U.S. K. Takata, U.S. Comments concerning reviewef AM-l IV A
EPA EPA Quality Assurance/Quality Control
Plan, dated September 19, 1986
\'
** 12/31/86"
Applied
Materials
-,
Air Stripper Operation Logs: 1986
IV E
-------
.
..
~:
paqe No.
, r17 /05/89 .
.. Date:
Author:
.* 03/03/87
Weiss
Associates
.* 07/01/87
Weiss
Associates
.* 07/22/87
J. Zelikson,
U.S. EPA
. ;.
1
- . . ----. -.'
IOIEISSASSOC"JES ~
Applied Materials Buildinq 1
Administrative Record
Table of Contents
Volume V: 1987
Recipient:
J. Schoeninq,
AM
J. Schoeninq,
AM
31. Morqan, AM
'""'!'* 08/31/87
S. Morse, RWQCB J. Schoeninq,
AM
** 09/24/87
R.W. Marek,
RWQCB .
.* 09/25/87
Weiss
Associates
** 10/05/87
Weiss
Associates
X.A. Isaacson,
WA
J. Schoeninq,
AM
J. Schoeninq,
AM
.* 11/30/87
S. Morse, RWQCB J. Schoeninq,
AM
Contents:
1986 Year-End Ground Water
Monitorinq Report
Volume:
V C
Quarterly Ground Water Monitorinq V C
Report
Notification of inclusion in
National Priorities List
Comments concerninq Revised
Quality Assurance/Quality control,
Samplinq and site Safety Plans
. da;ed June 1, 1987
Memorandum 'confirminq telephone
conversation concerning revision
of AM Quality Assurance/Quality
control Plan
VA
VA
VA
Addendum Revised Quality Assurance V E
Project Plan' Revised Samplinq
Plan
Quarterly Ground Water Monitoring V C
Report
comments concerninq Content of V A
Technical Report Required by C.l.e
of Order No. 86-71
-------
Page No.
07/05/89
** Date:
Author:
** 12/31/87
Applied
Haterials
. ;.
2
IO£lSS ASSOCIAre5 II-J4..
..~
Applied Materials Building 1
Administrative Record
Table ot Contents
Volume V: 1987
Recipient:
RWQCB
,.
Contents:
Air stripper Operation Logs: 1987
Volume:
V E
-------
-."
. ~age No.
" 07/05/89
** Date:
Author:
** 01/04/88
J. SChoening,
AM
** 01/05/88
Weiss.
Associates
** 01/19/88
J. SChoening,
AM
.** 02/29/88
R.W. Marek,
RWQCB
** 03/25/88
Weiss
Associates
** 05/31/88
J. SChoening,
AM
** 06/06/88
.R.W. Marek,
RWQCB
** 06/21/88
G. Kistner,
U.S. EPA
** 07/01/88
. Weiss
, Associates
R.W. Marek,
RWQCB
1
. \ . . .
~ ., ...... ,
~.. -. ~
IOEISSASSOCIATES ~
Applied Materials Building-1
Administrative Record
Table ot Contents
Volume VI: 1988
Recipient:
R.W. Marek,
RWQCB
J. SChoening,
AM
Contents:
Volume:
Letter requesting extension of due VI A
date for AM-l RI/FS report
1987 Year-end Ground Water
Monitoring Report
VI C
S. Morse, RWQCB Letter requesting extension ot due VI A
date tor AM-1 RI/FS report
J. Schoening,
AM
J. Schoening,
AM
R.W. Marek,
RWQCB
J. Schoening,
AM
R.W. Marek,
RWQCB
J. Schoening,
AM
Compliance Monitoring Report
VI B
Quarterly Ground Water Monitoring VI C
Report .'
Summary ot May 13, 1988 meetinq to VI A
discuss. long-term cleanup plan
Compliance Monitoring Report
VI B
EPA Comments on »1-1 Remedial
Investigation/Feasibility Study
VI A
Quarterly Ground Water Monitoring VI C
Report .
Case Transter Form
VI B
-------
_. ~. . ..- ..
paqe No. 2
07/05/89
~
** Date:
Author:
.. ~_.' ~.~. .--'... ,~''''.'.~.
.-. - . ~ ~ 4
. . . I '...' . "" ~~ ."
." .. ...
IlElSSASSOClAJES ~
.
.
Applied Materials Building l'
Administrative Record
Table ot Contents
Volume VI: 1988
Recipient:
** 07/20/88
S. Morse, RWQCB J. Schoening,
AM
** 07/29/88
X.A. Isaacson,
WA
** 08/25/88
RWQCB
** 09/07/88
G. Xistner,
U.S. EPA
G. Xistner,
U.S. EPA .
** 09/30/88
S. Havlicek,
CCAS
** 10/04/88
Weiss
Associates
Weiss
Associates
X.A. Issacson,
WA
R.W. Marek,
RWQCB
Contents:
Volume:
Review ot Remedial
Investigation/Feasibility Study
Report for AM-l
VIA
Discussion ot Soil Gas Venting as VI A
inappropriate technology tor AM-l
site .
Work Plan for AK-l
VI B
B. Wolf, RWQCB Review of Risk Assessment Section .VI A
ot AM-l Remedial
In~estigation/Feasibility S~udy.
B. Wolf, RWQCB
X.A. Isaacson,
WA
J. Schoening,
AM
J. schoening,
AM .
EPA comments on Risk As.essment VI A
portion ot AM R%/FS, dated 2/19/88
Data Validation for 10 Samples
Collected By Wei.. As.ociates at
AM-l During Triannual Sampling,
Sept. 1, 1988
VI E
Addendum to Remedial
Investigation/Feasibility s~udy
Proposed Remedial Action por VOCs VI B
in Ground Water At AM-l
VI B
B. Wolf, RWQCB Responses to July 20,1988 RWQCB
Comments Concerning AMl-RI/FS
Report
VIB
-------
&::.._- ..~-- - .
- ~ - ... -..--.-
~Page No.
07/05/89
.
.* Date:
Author:
*. 10/05/88
weiss
Associates
** 10/21/88
J. SChoeninq,
AM
. -_........- - __0 .--...:- -.. ~. -- - t 0 _.: ._...~
~.- ,~ ...". .'. .-
3
HlSSASSOCMMS JIUI
Applied Materials Buildinq 1
Administrative Record
Table of Contents
Volume VI: 1988
Recipient:
J. SChoeninq,
AM
A.J. Mancini,
RWQCB
*. 11/17/88
S. Morse, RWQCB J. SChoeninq,
AM
.. 11/29/88
, A.J. Mancini,
. RWQCB
M. D. . Kent,
RWQCB .
.* 12/06/88
P.D. Weiler, WA J. Schoening,
AM .
.* 12/12/88
G. Kistner,
u.S. EPA
.. 12/21/88
RWQCB
RWQCB
.. 12/31/88
Applied
Materials
A.J. Mancini,
RWQCB
Applied
Materials
RWQCB
Contents:
Volume:
Quarterly Ground Water Monitorinq VI C
Report
Notification of Extraction System VI A
Maintenance
Notice of Revised NPDES Permit
VIE
Review of Additional RI/FS
Revisions
VIA
. .
Comments on NPDES Permit Revisions VI A
.'
EPA Comments on AM RIIFS study
VI A
Waste Discharge Order '88-171
VI E
Execu~ive Officer summary Report
VIE
Air Stripper Operation Logs: 1988 VI E
-------
'- -.. . ._~ .
.....--.-- .-'-"'.
.-- ""-" ------.---- _:"'_--'::'--'0'___-'- i.. ',""': :~.~_.
'-~ - --.. .
paqe No.
06/12/90
1
--~... ~
Applied Materials Building 1
Administrative Record
Table of Contents
" Volume VII: 1989
** Date:
Author:
Recipient:
** 01/05/89
Weiss
Associates
J. Schoening,
AM .
** 01/12/89
J. Clifford,
U.S.EPA
RWgCB
** 01/23/89
S. Morse, RWgCB J. Schoening,
AM
** 02/22/89
s. XUSWI
Perera, DBS
Contents:
Volume:
1988 Year-End Ground Water
Monitoring Report
VIIC
Memo regarding need tor
. environmental evaluation at
Supertund Sites
VIlA
Comments on Additional Intormation VZI A
Submitted To Revise the Remedial
Investigation/Feasibility Study
tor AM-I
s. Morse, RWgCB Comments on Dat.a Validation
. Package Submitted to~ AM-l
VIlA
** 02/23/89
P.D. Weiler, WA J. Schoening,
AM
** 02/24/89
G. Kistner,
u.s. EPA
A.J. Mancini,
RwgCB
** . 03/07/89 ~.
S. Morse, RWgCB J. Schoeninq,
AM
** 03/09/89
S. Morse, RWgCB J. Schoeninq,
AM
'* 03/10/89
- S. Morse, RwgCB J. Schoeninq,
AM
.'
Draft Revised Risk Assessment
Portions ot AM-1 RI/FS
VZIB
Preliminary Health Assessment tor VZI B
AM-l
Compliance Monitoring Report
VII B
Letter Forwarding Comments on Data VII A
Validation Package Submitted tor
AM-l
Request tor Schedule ot
Administrative Record Compilation
VII A
-------
---~... . -
-- - - . -., --- ..
,..- ._- . -- -
, .
.
.....~ .
Pftge No.
,06/12/90
2
.. ..
-~~ VUI
Applied Materials Building 1 '
Administrative Record
Table of Contents
Volume VII: 19J9
"
** Date:
Author:
Recipient:
'** 03/14/89
P.D. Weiler, WA A.J. Mancini,
RWgCB
.* 03/16/89
R. saito,
Jacobs Enq.
A.J. Mancini,
RWgCB
.. 03/21/89
G. ICistner,
U.S. EPA
A.J. Mancini,
RWgCB '
-------
... ..~--_....- .-...
Page No.
06/12/90
** Date:
Author:
** 04/10/89
H.L. Stallard,
WA
- ..- -.- - - -. a
3
. - ~ . . ~ ... .
1lElSSASSC>a<1ES VM
Applied Materials Building 1
Administrative Record
Table of Contents
Volume VII: 1989
Recipient:
A.J. Mancini,
RWQCB
** 04/13/89
P.O. Weiler, WA A.J. 'Mancini,
RWQCB
S. Havlicek,
CCAS
** 04/14/89
H.L. Stallard,
WA
** 04/19/89
D. Spath, DHS
** 05/11/89
G. Kistner,
u.s. EPA
A.J. Mancini
** 05/18/89
G. Kistner,
u.s. EPA
M.L. Stallard,
WA
A. J. Mancini:,
RWQCB
RWQCB
A.J. Mancini,
RWQCB
P. Weiler, WA
A.J. Mancini,
RWQCB
** 05/19/89
P.O. Weiler, WA J. SChoening,
AM
Contents:
Letter Forwarding CCAS Responses
to Comments on Data Validation
Package
Responses t.o January 23, 1989
. RWQCB COmments Concerning AM-1
RI/FS Report
Volume:
VII A
VIIB
Special Comments SPA Check Sample VII A
~or Data Validation Package
,
Letter Forwarding Speciel Comments VII A
EPA Check Sample tor Data
. Validation
List ot Revised Action Le~els tor VII A
contaminants ot Drinking Water
List ot EPA guidance documents tor ~I A
admin. record reterences
List ot reference documents used
by RWQCB 2
EPA comments on AM revised
Endagerment Assessment dated.
3/15/89 '
Near-Source Soil Sampling
Investigation Plan
VII A
VII A
VII B
-------
-----~--'-~-"'"------ -- .--'--_."
."-----_._--~".__.__.-_._---~-,_.__......"--,_._. ,'-- '......' --_." - .' ':.-'--. ~ . ,- .-_4'..
- - -
~
f
Page No.
,O~t12/90
4
-Assoa.1rS VUI
.
.
Applied Materials Building 1
Administrative Record
Table of Contents
Volume ~l: 1989
** Date:
Author:
Recipient:
Contents:
Volume:
** OS/23/89
S. Morse, RWQCB J. SChoening,
AM
compliance Monitoring Report
~lB
** 06/14/89
Weiss
Associates
J. Schoening,
AM
Remedial Investigation and
Feasibility Study For Applied
. Materials Building 1
~IB
** 06/21/89
Reporting RWQCB Reporter's Transcript of VIlE
service Proceedings, June 21, 1989
~ RWQCB J. Schoening, Tentative Order ot Site Cleanup VIlE
AM Requirements tor AK-1
** 06/23/89
Applied RWQCB Air Stripper Operation Logs: ,1989 VIlE
Materials
.'
** 06/29/89
CA RWQCB Presentation by RWQCB Staff, VIlE
Public Meeting, 6/29/89
** 07/05/89
A. Martorana, J. Schoening, Quarterly Ground Water Monitoring VII C
WA AM Report
,
** 07/20/89
T.I. Iwamura, A.J. Mancini, Comments on 7/16/89 Proposed ,Final VII A
SCVWD RWQCB RAP for AM-1
** 07/21/89
J. Schoening,
AM
,
P.O. Weiler, WA J. Schoening,
AM
A.J. Mancini,
RWQCB
Letter transmitting responses to
6/21/89 tentative order
Responses to 6/21/89 tentative
order for AM-1
VII A
VII A
-------
.;..
Page No.
06/12/90
5
tElSSASSOCIotIES ~
. 9
Applied ~terials Building 1 "
Administrative Record
Table of Contents
Volume ~I: 1989
.* Date:
Author:
Recipient:
G. Kistner,
USEPA
A.J. Hancini,
RWQCB
** 08/21/89
S.K. Perera,
DHS
COntents:
EPA Comments on Public Health
Evaluation from 7/14/89 RI/PS for
0-1
S. Horse, RWQCB Pinal Data Validation Report for
. AM-1
P.D. Weiler, WA J. Schoening,
AM
** 08/28/89
P.D. Weiler, WA J. Schoening,
AM .
** 09/01/89
CA RWQCB
** 09/05/89
S. Horse, RWQCB J. Schoening,
AM
s. Horse, RWQCB J. Schoening,
AM
** 09/06/89
S. Morse, RWQCB
,.
P.D. Weiler, WA J. Schoening,
AM
** 09/08/89
." CA RWQCB
J. Schoening,
AM
Comments on draft responses for
tentative order for AH-1
Volume:
VII A
~IE
VII A
Responses to SCVWD comments, dated VII A
7/20/89
Community Relations Plan for
superfund sites in the City Qf. ."
Santa Clara
.'
Response to' letter dated 8/21/89
concerning tentative order for
AM-1
VXIE
VItA
Responses to CODents dated VII A
8/21/89 concerning tentative order
for AM-1
Responsiveness Summary to cments VII E
Concerning Tentative Order for
AH-1
Preliminary Report of Near-Source VII B
Soil Sampling Investigation
Results
Revised Tentative Order of Site
Cleanup Requirements for AM-l
VII E
-------
.
.
Vage No.
. C>6/12/90
'** Date:
Author:
6
IIBSSASSOCtAJES JIUI
Applied Materials Building 1
Administrative Record
Table of Contents
Volume VII: 1989
Recipient:
** 09/18/89
J.T. A.J. Mancini,
Wondolleck, CDM RWQCB
*'* 09/19/89
D.W. Alden, OBS CA RWQCB
** 09/21/89
CA RWQCB
** 09/25/89
S. Ritchie,
WQCB
** 09/28/89
S. Morse, WQCB
'** 10/05/89
A. Martorana,
WA
'*'* 10/31/89
Weiss
Associates
'** 11/06/89
A. Martorana,
WA
Contents:
Review Comments on AM-1 Ground
Water Remedial Alternatives
Comments on Revised Tentative
Order and site Cleanup
Requirements for AK-1
Applied Order for Site Cleanup
Materials, Inc. Requirements for AM Building 1
state of
California
J. Schoening,
AM
J. SChoeninq,
AM
'Applied
Materials
T. Mancini,
RWQCB
'** 11/01/89
S. Morse, WQCB J. Schoening,
AM
Notice of Exemption, section
15321, Title 14, CA Code of
Regulations
.'
Letter Transmitting Order 89-161
Volume:
VII A
VII A
VIlE
VIlA
VII A
Quarterly Ground Water Monitoring VII C
Report
Final'Plan for disposal and
reclamation ad extracted qround
water
Request for change of submittal
date of quarterly report
VII B
VII A
Request for Due Date Extension for VII A
Assessment of VOCs in Soil Rpt.
-------
......~--_. -----.....:.-.----.-.....:.------
.~----- . ..----'"'.--' ---.:. _.~._~_'\........... :.~--'
- '.:' - - . a -
Page No.
06/12/90
7
IOSSSASSOCM1I5S ~
Applied Materials Building 1
Administrative Record
Table of Contents
Volume VXI: 1989
.... Date:
Author:
Recipient:
Contents:
Volume:
** 11/14/89
s. Morse, WQCB J. Schoening, Reply to Request to Change Due VII A
AM Date for Submittal. of Quarterly
Report
** 11/17/89
Weiss J . SChoening,. Report on detection and formation VIIB
Associates AM of vinyl chloride in ground ~ater
** 11/28/89
S. Morse, WQCB J. Schoening, Letter Noting Reports Required by VIlA
AM Order No. 89-167, site Cleanup
Requirements
** 11/29/89
Weiss J. Schoening, Progress Report on assessment of VXIB
Associates AM VOCs in soil at AM .
"
** 12/18/89
S. Morse, WQCB J. Schoening, Comments on Report and Letter on VIlA
AM Disposal and Reclamation of
Extracted Ground water
s. Morse, WQCB J. Schoening, Comments Concerning Soil Cleanup VIlA
AM Evaluation at the Building 1 Site
-------
-.
SEP 24 '~0 09:19
. . i ..
1i.
~.
Date:
~uthor:
"01/05/90
J. SChoening
Applied Materials
..0 I / 11/90
Wciss Associates
"0 I /22/90
D. Wang
DHS
**01/29/90
Weiss Associates
..02/15/90
Weiss Associa teS
..03/05/90
J. Thompson
R WQCB
..03/06/90
S. Morse
RWQCB
S. Morse
RWQCB
"03/13/90
Weiss Associates
WEISS RSSOOCIHTE~
:1;:)'- t--\:J,
M!lSS ASSOClA71!S
VJH
APPLIED MATERIALS BUILDING 1
ADMINISTRATIVE RECORD
T ABLE OF CONTENTS
VOLUME VIII: 1990
RcciDicn.t
A.J. Mancini
R WQCB
1. Schoening
Applied Materials
J. Schoening
Applied Ma terials
J. Schoening
Applied Materials
J. Schoening
Applied Materials
;"
J. Schoening
Applied Materials
J. Schoeni ng
App1ie~ Materials
L.K. Sil va
EPA
J. Schoening
Applied Materials
-(for,"~"~ ~rr'
C;on ten ts: Volume
Response to wa ter use VIIIA
constraints in the
- event of a change in
'~',ownershjp
1989 Year-end ground vmc
water monitoring report
Notification that DHS VWA
does not require
further inf orma tion
regarding the site
Assessment of VOCs in vnm
soil at AM-!
Final plan for disposal VIDB
and reclamation of
extracted ground water
t
Site update document VIIIA
for Santa Clara Superfund
sites
Requirements for NPDES VIIIA
permit renewal
Renewal application for VIDE
NPDES permit No. CA00288S I
Quarterly ground water VIIIC
monitorina report
-------
SEP 24 'ge 09:2e WEISS ~SSOOCIATES 957 pe3
WEISS ABSOCIA7ES ~JH
. .
Da tC:
t.uthor: RcciDient Contents: Volume
...03/15/90 VDIA
J. Thompson C. Johnson Site update document for
R WQCB Santa Clara Santa Clara Superfund sites
"03/20/90
S. Morse J. Schoening Letter request for additional VIllA
R WQCB Applied Materials NPDES renewal permit materials
..03/21/90
S. Morse J. Schoening Letter regarding Vl1IA
RWQCB Applied Matcrials .'. recommendation of amending
.Order 89-167 .
..04/06/90
J. Schoening T. Manein i Clarification that AM is not VmA
Applied Materials R WQCB required to complete form
3510-3
..04/18/90
S. Morse J. Schoening Comments to quarterly ground VIDA
R WQCB Applied Matedal, water monitoring report,
January. March 1990
S.Morse J. Schoening Letter requesting the update VIIIA
RWQCB Applied Materials of Administrative Record
S. Morse Q. Toney Signature auth.orization, VIllA
R WQCB Applied Materials NPDES permit renewal
S. Morse J.Schoening Leuer addressing completion V1IIA
R WQGB Applied Materials or NPDES permit renewal and
need for signature
authorization
S. Morse A. Matthews Transmittal or remainder V1IIA
RWQCB CA . WRCB ' of renewai application for
NPDES permit CA 0028851
S. Morse L.K. Silva Transmittal of remainder VIllA
R WQCB EPA of renewal application for
NPDES permit CA 002885 I
..OS/07/90
S. Morse J. Schoening Need for publie comment VlllA
R WQCB Applied Materials period for amended Board
Order No. 89-167
r' ~.~ ~~':" :\I","":;,::-T:,..~'?'i:~tl"
-------
SEP 24 '90 0'3: 20 WEISS ASSOOCIHTES ';:j:J'( 1-'\::)4
..eBS ASSOCIA7ES VJR
Date:
Author: Rccinient Contents: Volume
. ..05/08/90 J. Schoening
D. Wang Notification that DHS does VIllA
DHS Applied Materials not require further
,information regarding the
site
"05/14/90
Weiss Associates A.J. Mancini AM Sampling letter in VIllA
R WQCB response to letter da ted
':" April 18, J 990
..05/17/90
G. Toney S. Morse Authorization for Jerry VDIA
Applied Materials R WQCB Schoening to sign reports,
applications, etc.
S. Morse J. Schoenjng Notification that Amended VIllA
RWQCB Applied Materials Board Order No. 89-167 wil1
not be presented in June
..05/29/90
S. Morse J. Schoening Response to AMs comments VIllA
RWQCB Applied Materials to tentative NPDES permit
renewal requirements
"06/19/90
J. Schoening A.I. Mancini Notification of problems with VIUA
Applied Materials R WQCB ground water extraction due
to construction
"06/25/90
S. Mor~e J. Schoening Problems affecting ground VTIIA
R WQCB Applied Materials water extraction due to
construction
;.
..06/28/90
R WQCB AppHed Materials Guidance document for the YDIE
development of health-based
remedial clean-up levels
for the South aay
..07/10/90
Weiss Associates R WQCB Diagrams and figures VlI1E
presented at July 10. 1990
mecdna
..07/12/90
S. Morse J. Schoening Summary of July 10, J 990 VillA
RWQCB Applied Materials meeting
..07/13/90
Weiss Associates J. Schoening Quarterly ground water vrne
Applied Materials monitoring report
-------
5EP 24 '90 09:20
Date:
Author:
,..07/16/90
R WQCB
S. Morse
R WQCB
..07/17/90
S. Morse
..07/20/90
S. Morse
R WQCB
..07/23/90
G. Hiatt
EPA
..07/25/90
J. Schoening
Applied Materials
Weiss Associates
Weiss Associates
..08/01./90
S. Morse
R WQCB
..08/15/90
RWQCB
Executive Officer
..08/28/90
S. Morse
RWQC8
WE I 55 RSSOOC I ~TE5
Ihcioient
R WQCB
J. Schoening
Applied M3terlals
J. Schoening
Applied Materials
J. Schoening
Applied Materials
A.J. Mancini
R WQCB
S. Morse'
R WQCB
J. Schoening
Applied Materials
J.Schoening
Applied Materials
,..
J. Schoenina
Applied Materials
Public Record
Board Members
J. Schoening
Applied Materials
9S7 P0S
4
~
WEISS ASSOCIA7ES
Contents:
Volume
Maximum Contaminant Levels
VInE
VIllA
,Transmittal of compliance
monitoring report for
NPDES permi t
Compliance monitoring report VIDA
~'
DiScussion of monthly self - VIDA
monitoring report for
June 1990
Treatment of 1,I-DCE for the VIDA
purposes of risk assessment
Deed restriction text VIllA
AM Clean-up plan fact YInB
sheet summary
Updated feasibility study VIIIB
alternatives evaluation
.
Notice of revised tentative VDIE
Order amending Order No.
89-167
AM Building 1 Santa Clara VIIIE
Superfund Site Fact Sheet
No.3
Item 18, Executive Officer, VUlE
Summary Report for meeting
08/ I 5/90, with correspondence
from AM to WQCB dated 08/07/90
Response to AMs comments ' VIDA
regarding proposed tentative
order and staff report
-------
SSP 24 '9~ 09:21
. .8
..
'!:«
. ..
\ ..
Date
Author:
"09/07/90
S. Morse
RWQCB
Weiss Associa tcs
"09/13/90
Applied Materials
"09/) 9/90
E~ecutivc Officer
WEISS ASSOQCIATES
Recioient
. .
J. Schoening/J. Delons
Applied Materials
J. Schoening
Applied Ma tcrials
Weiss Associates.
Board Members
;.
957 Pt;j6
. ',d,' . ..
M£JSS ASSOCIA~S
Contents:
Revised tentative order and
accompanying correspondenoe
NPDES reporting and
analytic reports
Air stripper togs from
March 1989 through
"'August 1990
Supplemental to revised
tentative Order No. 89-167
.
Volume
VIDE
YInD
VIDD
YIIIE
VJR
-------
...' . . ~ ..
aJIDAt«:E IXXDBf.l'S
'!he following is a list of the U.S. EPA Guidance Ib:uments consulted during
developnent and selection of the Response Action for the Applied Materials
Superfund site in Santa Clara, CA. '!hese docl.ments are included in the
~um of CERCIA Response Selection Guidance nx:uments (Volumes 1-35),
which is available for public review at the Superfund Records Center, EPA
Region IX, San Francisco.
,.
-------
'8111 No.
09/27/90
-INDEX-
COMPENDIUM OF CERCLA RESPONSE SELECTION GUIDANCE DOCUMENTS
Doc
No
Vol
TIU.
Tier Attlchment8
Author.
OSWER/EPA Number
Dltl
StatuI
Pa988
...---..
.... ...........
................
** RIIFS - GENERAL
2002 3 GUIDANCE FOR CONDUCTING REMEDIAL 10/01/88 - OSWER/OERR FINAL 390 OSWER 19355.3-01
INVESTIGATIONS AND FEASIBILITY
STUDIES UNDER CERCLA
2012 5 SUPERFUND STATE-LEAD REMEDIAL 12/01/86 - OERR .FINAL 120 OSWER 19355.2-'
PROJECT MANAGEMENT HANDBOOK
** RI/FS - II DATA QUALITY/SITE & VASTE ASSESSMENT
2100 5 A COMPENDIIIf OF SUPERFUND fiELD 12/01/81 - OERR FINAL 550 OSWER 19355.0-14
OPERATIONS METIICI)S
2101 5 6 DATA QUALITY OBJECTIVES fOR 03/01/81 - COM FEDERAL PROGRAMS FINAL 150 OSWER 19355.0-18
IEMEDIAL RESPONSE ACTIVITIES: CORP.
DEVELOPMENT PROCESS
2102 6 DATA QUALITY OBJECTIVES FOR 03/01/81 - COM FEDERAL PROGRAMS FINAL 120 OSWER 19355.018
IEMEDIAL IESPONSE ACTIVITIES: CORP.
EXAMPLE SCENARIO: II/FS
ACTIVITIES AT A SITE
V/CONTAIUNATED SOILS AND
GROUNDVATEI
2112 8 GUIDELINES AND SPECIFICATIONS FOR 06/01/81 - ORO/QUALITY ASSURANCE FINAL 31 2 1) MEMO: GUIDANCE ON
PREPARING QUALITY ASSURANCE MANAGEMENT STAFF PREPARING GAPP, DATED
PROGRAM DOCIIfENTATlON 6/10/81
.- . t'
. .
. .
-------
Pa". No.
09/21190
2
-INDEX-
COMPENDIUM OF CERCLA RESPONSE SELECTION GUIDANCE DOCUMENTS
Doc
No
Vol
TIUe
Authors
Date
TIer Attachment.
Status
Pag8.
. OS\lER/EPA NtIIOer
..._.~..
.-.. ...........
...-............
2113 8 LABORATORY DATA VALIDATION 01/01/88 - EPA DATA REVIEW WORK DRAFT 20 2
FUNCTIONAL.GUIDELINES FOR GROOP - BLEYLER, R.VIAR
EVALUATING INORGANICS ANALYSES AND CO./SAMPLE MCMT.
OFFICE
2114 8 LABORATORY DATA VALIDATION 02/01/88 . BLEYLER, R./VIAR AND DRAFT 45 2
FUNCTIONAL GUIDELINES FOR OC./SAMPLE MCMT. OFFICE
EVALUATING ORGANIC ANALYSES - EPA DATA REVIEW
ORKGROUP
2115 8 PRACTICAL GUIDE FOR GRClJNIHIATER 09/01/85 . BARCELONIA, M.J.', ET. FINAL 175 EPA/600/2-85/104
SAMPLING AL./ILLINOIS ST. ~TER
SURVEY
2116 8 PRACTICAL GUIDE FOR GRClJNIHIATER 01/01/85 . BARCELONA, M.J., ET.
SAMPLING AL./ILLINOIS ST. WATER
SURVEY
** RI/FS. LAND DISPOSAL FACILITY TECHNOLOGY
2204 13 LAND DISPOSAL RESTRICTIONS 08/11/81 - LONGEST, H.L./OERR FINAL Z3 2 1) SUMMARY OF MAJOR LDR
PROVISIONS AND CALIFORNIA
LIST PROHIBITIONS 2)
OTHER.ATTACHS CITED ARE
AVAILABLE IN FED. REG.
.
II.
'iJ (a..
-------
paoa No.
09/27190
3
..'"' .~'
..
~
. INDEX-
COMPENDIUM OF CERCLA RESPONSE SELECTION GUIDANCE DOCUMENTS
Doc
No
VoL
TIUe
Data
Authors
Status
Pages
Tier Attachments
OSIIER/EPA Nurber
-.......
.-.. ...........
................
.. RI/FS' OTHER TECHNOLOGIES
2300 16 A cacPEIIDIUM Of TECHNOlOGIES USED 09/01/87 . ORD/CERI fINAL 49 2 EPA/625/8.87/014
IN THE TREATMENT Of HAZARDOUS
WASTES
.. AlARS
3001 25 CERCLA CCltPLlANCE AND OTHER 10/02/05 . PORTER, J.II./OSWER fINAL 19 1) POTENTIALLY APPLICABLE OSIIER #9234.0-2
ENVIRONMENTAL STATUTES. OR RELEVANT AND
APPROPRIATE REQUIREMENTS
. or-
3002 25 C£RC\.A COMPLIANCE "ITH OTliER LAWS 08/08/88 . CERR DRAFT 245 2 OSWER #9234.1-01
MANUAL
.. WATER QUALITY
4003 26 QUALITY CRITERIA '01 WATER 1986 05/01/87 . OFfICE Of WATER fINAL 325 2 EPA/440/5.86.001
REGULATIONS AND STANDARDS
*. RISK ASSESSMENT
5001 27 CHEMICAL, PHYSICAL & BIOLOGICAL 09/27/85 . CLEMENT ASSOCIATES, fINAL 320 2 OMR 19850.3
PROPERTIES Of COMPOUNDS PRESENT INC.
AT HAZARDOUS WASTE SITES
-------
Page No. 4
09/27190
-INDEX-
COMPENDIUM OF CERCLA RESPONSE SELECTION GUIDANCE DOCUMENTS
Doc
No Vot Tltte Date Authors StatuI Pages Tier Attachment. OSWER/EPA Number
-....... .-.- ........... .-..............
5002 21 FINAL GUIDANCE FOR THE 05/14/87 - PORTER, J.W./OSWER/OERR FINAL 22 2 1) SAME TITLE, DATED OSWER 19285.4-02
COORDINATION OF ATSOR HEALTH 4/22/81
ASSESSMENT ACTIVITIES WITH THE
SUPERFUND REMEDIAL PROCESS
5003 21 GUIDELINES FOR CARCINOGEN RISK 09/24/86 - EPA FINAL 13 2
ASSESSMENT (FEDERAL REGISTER,
SEPTEMBER 24, 1986, P.33992)
5004 21 GUIDELINEI FOR EXPOSURE 09/24/86 - EPA FINAL 14 2
ASSESSMENT (FEDERAL REGISTER,
SEPTEMBER 24, 1986, P. 34042)
5005 21 GUIDELIIEI FOR HEALTH ASSESSMENT 09/24/86 - EPA FINAL 14 2
OF SUSPECT DEVELOPMENTAL
TOXICANTS (FEDERAL REGIITER,
SEPTEMBER 24, 1986. P. 34028)
5006 21 GUIDELINES FOR MUTAGEIECITY RISK 09/24/86 - EPA FINAL 8 2
ASSESSMENT (FEDERAL REGISTER,
SEPTEMBER 24, P. 34006)
5007 21 GUIDELINES FOR THE HEALTH RISK 09/24/86 - EPA FINAL 13 2
ASSESSMENT OF CHEMICAL MIXTURES
(FEDERAL REGISTER, SEPTEMBER 24,
1986, P.34014)
-------
P.". No. 5 .-. If." ,,' .
09/27/90
-INDEX-
COMPENDIUM OF CERCLA RESPONSE SELECTION GUIDANCE DOCUMENTS
Doc
No Vol TtUe Date Authora Stltus Plges Tter Attachments OSWER/EPA Number
.--..... .... .-......... ................
5008 28+ HEAlTH EFFECTS ASSESSMENT 09/01/84 - ORD/CHEAlECAO FINAL 1750 2 EPA/540/1-86/001-058
DOCUMENTS (58 CHEMICAL PROFILES)
VOL. 28: ACETONE, ARSENIC,
ASBESTOS, BARIUM, BENZO(A)PYRENE,
CADMIUM, ETC.
5009 31 INTEGRATED RISK INFORMATION 1 1 . CHEA FINAL 2
SYSTEM (IRIS) [A COMPUTER-BASED
HEALTH RISK INFORMATION SYSTEM
AVAILABLE THROUGH
E-MAILuBROCHURE ON ACCESS IS
I NCLtI)EDJ
5011 31 PUBLIC HEALTH RISK EVALUATION 09/16/88 . OERR/TOXICS INTEGRATION FINAL 2
DATABASE (PHRED) [USER'S MANUAL BRANCH
AND TWO DISKETTES CONTAINING THE
DBASEIII PLUS SYSTEM ARE
INCLtI)EDJ
5013 31 SUPERFUND EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT 04/01/88 - OERR FINAL 160 OMR 19285.5-1
MANUAL
5014 31 StlPERRIft) PUBLIC HEALTH 10/01/86 - OERR FINAL 500 OSWER 19285.4-1
EVALUATION MANUAL
-------
PI;8 No.
09/27190
6
-INDEX-
COMPENDIUM OF CERCLA RESPONSE SELECTION GUIDANCE DOCUMENTS
Doc
No
Vol
Title
Date
Authors
Itltus
PI988
Tier Attlchment.
OSWER/EPA Number
..-.....
.... ...........
-...............
** CCIIMUtIITY RELATIONS
7000 32 COIIUIITY RELATIONS IN SUPERFUNDI 06/01/88 - ClERR FINAL 188 2 1) CHAP. 6 OF THE COM. OSWER 19230.0-03.
A HANDBOOK (INTERIM VERSION) REL. HANDBOOK 11/03/88
** SELECTION OF REMEDY/DECISION DOCUMENTS
9000 32 lITER 1M GUIDANCE ON SUPERFUND 12/24/86 - PORTER, J.W./OSWER FINAL 10 2 OSWER 19355.0,19
SELECTION OF REMEDY
** IIEW ADDITIONS
9002 33 IITERIM FIlIAL GUIDANCE ON 06/01/89 INTERIM OSWER 19355.3.02
PREPARIIIG SUPERFUND DECISION FINAL
DOCUMENTS
9005 33 GICUID VATER ISSUEs PERFORMANCE 1 1 -KEELEY, J.F. EPA/540/4-89/005
EVALUATIONS OF PUMP-AND-TREAT
REMEDIATIONS
9009 33 IIA TlONAL OIL & IIAZARDCUS 07101/85 92
SUBSTANCES POLLUTION COIITiNGENCY
GUIDANCE, PART 300, 40 CFR CH. 1
(7/1/85 EDITION), pp. 664 - 755
9010 33 SUPERFUND AMENDMENTS & 10/11/86 99TH CONGRESS OF U.S. 130
REAUTIKItIZATION ACT OF 1986
(SARA)
..' " -,.
-------
...I.r'ii '."
".
Peg. No. 1
&9/27/90
-INDEX-
COMPENDIUM OF CERCLA RESPONSE SELECTION GUIDANCE DOCUMENTS
<'
Doe
No Vol Ttt\e Det. Authors Status Pages T'er Attachments OSWER/EPA Number
........ -... ........-.. -...............
,
9011 RISK ASSESSMENT GUIDANCE FOR 12/01/89 INTERIM EPA/540/1-89/002
SUPERFUND - VOLUME " HUMAN FINAL
HEAL TH EVALUAT ION MANUAL (PART A)
9012 2 RISIC ASSESSMENT GUIDANCE FOR, 03/01/89 INTERIM EPA/540/'-89/001A
SUPERFUND - VOLUME 2, -FINAL
ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION MANUAL
9013 INTERIM GUIDANCE ON 03/01/89 INTERIM 85 OSWER 9833.3A
ADMINISTRATIVE RECORDS FOR
SELECTION OF CERCLA RESPONSE
ACTIONS
9014 INTERIM GUIDANCE ON C04PLIANCE 01/&9/81 INTERIM 9 osweR 9324.0-05
VITH APPLICABLE OR RELEVANT AND
APPROPRIATE REQUIREMENTS
9015 ceRCLA CCMPLIANCE VITH OTHER LAWS 08/01/89 IIiTERIM OSWER 9234.1-02
MANUAL: PART 'f - CLEAN AIR ACT FINAL
AND OTHER ENVIRONMENTAL STATUTES
AND STATE REQUIREMENTS
9017 REGION 9 ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 06/01/89 28
AGENCY DRIIiKING WATER STANDARDS
AND HEALTH ADVISORY TABLE
-------
. .,
. , I
P811a No. 8
09/27/90
. INDEX-
COMPENDIUM OF CERCLA RESPONSE SELECTION GUIDANCE DOCUMENTS
Doc
No Vol Tltl. Date Authors Status P811a. Tlar Attachment. OSUER/EPA Number
..-..... .... ........... ................
9018 CCIISIDERATlOliS III GROONDWATER 10/18/89 8 osweR 9355_4-03
REMEDIATION AT SUPERFUND SITE
9019 SUPERfUND LDR GUIDE 17: 12/01/89 2 osweR 9347.3-08F8
DETERMINING WHEN LAND DISPOSAL
RESTRICTIONS (LOR.) ARE -RELEVANT
AND APPROPRIATE- TO CERCLA
RESPONSE ACTIONS
9020 RISIe ASSESSMENT GUIDANCE FOR 12/15/89 INTERIM
SUPERfUND IUWC HEALTH RISIC FINAL
ASSESSMENT: U.S. EPA REGION IX
RECCIIMENDATIONS
9021 A GUIDE TO DEVELOPING SUPERFUND 05/00190 FACT 4 OSWER 9335.3-02FS-1
RECORDS OF DECISION SHEET
9022 GUIDANCE 011 REMEDIAL 06/01/85 FINAL OSWER 9355.0-068
INVESTIGATIONS UNDER CERCLA
9023 GUIDANCE 011 FEASIBILITY STUDIES 06/01/85 FINAL OSWER 9355.0-05e
UNDER CERCLA
9024 CCIIITROL OF AIR EMISSIONS FROt 89/06/15 FINAL osweR 9355.0-28
SUPERfUND AIR STRIPPERS AT
SUPERfUND GROUNDWATER SITES
",- ~ "f.
-------
Page No. 9
09/27/90
-INDEX-
COMPENDIUM OF CERCLA RESPONSE SELECTION GUIDANCE DOCUMENTS
Doc
No Vol TWe Date Authors Status Pages Tier Attachments OSUER/EPA Number
9025 GROUND WATER POLICY - REGION 9 05/00/89
------- |