United States Office of
Environmental Protection Emergency and
Agency Remedial Response
EPA/ROD/R09-92/085
September 1992
Superfund
Record of Decision:
Jasco Chemical, CA
-------
NOTICE
The appendices listed in the index that are not found in this document have been removed at the request of
the issuing agency. They contain material which supplement, but adds no further appfcatte information to
the content of the document AH supplemental material is, however, contained in ihe administrative record
for this site.
-------
50272.101
REPORT DOCUMENTATION 11. REPORT NO. 1 ~ 3. Recipient's Acceaaion No.
PAGE EPA/ROD/R09-92/085
4. 11118 snd Subtitle 5. Report Date
SUPERFUND RECORD OF DECISION 09/30/92
Jasco Chemical, CA 6.
First Remedial Action - Final
7. Author(e) S. Performing Orgsnization RepL No.
8. Performing OrgaInlzatlon Narne end Add- 10. Projec1/Tuk/Work Unh No.
11. Contract(C) or Grsnt(G) No.
(C)
IG)
1~ . Spoll8Oring Orvenization Name and Add.... 13. Type 01 Report & Period Covered
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency 800/000
401 M Streetr S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20460 14.
15. Supplementary Nole8
PB93-964507
16. Ab8tract IUndt: 2CIII worda)
The 2.0S-acre Jasco Chemical site is a chemical blending and packaging facility in
Mountain View, Santa Clara County, California. Land use in the area is predominantly
residential with some light industry. An estimated 67,000 residents in the City of
Mountain View use municipal water from wells and a reservoir as their drinking water
supply; however r EPA has determined that ground water in the shallow aquifer underlying
the site is a potential source of drinking water. From 1951 to 1976, the site changed
hands several times. In December 1976, Jasco began repackaging bulk chemicals into
smaller quantities and blending chemicals to produce products, such as paint thinners
and degreasers. Jasco received bulk chemicals in 55-pound bags and in 55-gallon drums,
and chemicals were stored in eight underground tar-wrapped storage tanks. In 1984,
putty mixing operations were initiated. As a result of a citizen's complaint of
solvents being dumped onsite, the state conducted a preliminary ground water
investigation in 1984, which showed the presence of pentachlorophenol and methylene
chloride, chemicals used by Jasco, in the soil and ground water. In 1985, a subsequent
investigation showed the presence of high levels of contaminated soil in the drainage
(See Attached Page)
17. Document Analysis 8. Descriptors
Record of Decision - Jasco Chemical, CA
First Remedial Action - Final
Contaminated Media: soil, gw
Key Contaminants: VOCs (benzene, PCE, TCE, toluene, xylenes)
b. Identifiera/Open.Ended Terms
c. COSA 11 Reid/Group
18. Availabilhy Statement 19. Security Cis"" (This Report) 21. No. 01 Peges
None 80
20. Security CI..... (This Page) 22. Price
None
272 (4-77)
(See ANSI-Z:I8.1S)
See Ine/me/lone on Re"e-
(Formerly NnS-35)
Depertment 01 Commerce
-------
EPA/ROD/R09-92/085
Jasco Chemical, CA
First Remedial Action- Final
Abstract (Continued)
swales around the plant. In 1987, Jasco removed a leaking underground diesel storage
tank that had been installed prior to 1976. Soil sampling in the immediate area showed
the presence of diesel derivatives, such as PAHs. Since 1987, Jasco has been extracting
and discharging contaminated ground water to the storm sewer system in accordance with
their permit provisions. In 1990, trace chemicals placed in the eight underground tanks
revealed one leak below action levels. This ROD addresses treating tank source
materials present in the soil and ground water and preventing future migration of
contaminants. The primary contaminants of concern affecting the soil and ground water
are VOCs, including benzene, PCE, TCE, toluene, and xylenes.
The selected remedial action for this site includes excavating and treating 1,100 cubic
yards of contaminated soil onsite using enhanced biotreatment; treating air emissions
using carbon adsorption, and treating or disposing of spent carbon offsite; testing
residual soil, with pretreatment if necessary, and onsite disposal if treatment levels
are met, or offsite disposal if clean up levels are still exceeded; extracting and
treating contaminated ground water with an onsite liquid phase carbon adsorption unit,
and discharging treated ground water offsite to a sanitary sewer, as permitted;
implementing hydraulic controls to prohibit future plume migration, conducting quarterly
ground water monitoring; and implementing institutional controls including deed
restrictions to limit use of ground water. The estimated present worth cost for this
remedial action ranges from $601,000 to $684,000, which includes a $32,800 annual O&M
cost for 5-10 years.
PERFORMANCE STANDARDS OR ~OALS:
Chemical-specific soil clean-up goals are established on health-based levels estimated
using SDWA MCLs and include 1,1-DCA 0.6 mg/kg; 1,1-DCE 2 mg/kg; 1,2-DCE 0.03 mg/kg;
cis-1,2-DCE 1 mg/kg; 1,1,1-TCA 100 mg/kg; acetone 30 mg/kg; benzene 0.3 mg/kg;
chloroethane 4,000 mg/kg; diesel mixture 10,000 mg/kg; ethylbenzene 3,000 mg/kg;
methanol 200 mg/kg; methyl ethyl ketone 9 mg/kg; methylene chloride 0.2 mg/kg; PCE
7 mg/kg; toluene 1,000 mg/kg; TCE 3 mg/kg; vinyl chloride 0.02 mg/kg; and xylenes
2,000 mg/kg. Chemical-specific ground water clean-up goals are based on federal and
state MCLs and include acetone 4,000 ug/l; benzene 1 ug/l; 1,1-DCA 5 ug/l; 1,1-DCE 6
ug/l; 1,2-DCA 0.5 ug/l; methylene chloride 5 ug/l; PCE 5 ug/l; toluene 1 ug/l; petroleum
hydrocarbons 1 ug/l; and vinyl chloride 0.5 ug/l.
-------
v~\
-------
L-
,
DECLARA'1':IOH
-------
PART I:
DECLARATION
CON'rENTS
PART
SECTION
PAGE
I 1.0 site Name and Location 1
I 2.0 Statement of Basis and Purpose 1
I 3.0 Assessment of the Site 1
I 4.0 Description of the Remedy 2
I 5.0 Statutory Determinations 4
-------
..;j~\'EO ST~.>i".$'
i ft ~
'" '"
~~~
'" '"
~ (:J~
1-.>.04, PAD'"''''
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION IX .
75 Hawthorne Street
San Francisco, CA 95105-3901
OFFICE OF THE
REGIONAL ADMINISTRATOR
DECLARATION
1.0
SITE NAME AND LOCATION
JASCO CHEMICAL COMPANY
SANTA CLARA COUNTY
Mountain View, California
2.0
STATEMElft' OF BASIS AIm PURPOSE
This Record of Decision ("ROD") presents the selected
remedial actions for the Jasco Chemical Company Superfund site in
Mountain vi~w, California. This document was developed in ac-
cordance with the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensa-
tion, and Liability Act of 1980 (CERCLA) as amended by the Super-
fund Amendments and Reauthorization Act of 1986 (SARA), 42 U.S.C.
section 9601 et. sea.. and to the extent practicable the National
oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan, 40
C.F.R. section 300 et. sea.. ("NCP"). EPA issues this Record of
Decision ("ROD") pursuant to section 104 of CERCLA, and has
selected the remedial action in accordance with section 121 of
CERCLA. As provided in section 121 (e)(1) of CERCLA, no federal,
state or local permit shall be required for the portion of any
remedial action conducted entirely onsite, when such remedial ac-
tion is carried out in compliance with section 121. This deci-
sion is based on the administrative record for this site.
The State of California concurs with the selected remedy.
3.0
ASSESSMENT OF THE SITE
Actual or threatened release of hazardous substances from
this site, if not addressed by implementing the response action
selected in this ROD, may present an imminent and substantial en-
dangerment to public health, welfare, or the environment.
Print~d on hcyc/~d Ptl{XT
-------
4.0
DESCRIPTION OF THE REMEDY
The remedy addresses the principal threat remaining at the
Jasco Chemical Company Superfund site by treating the toxic
source materials that are present in groundwater and soil thereby
significantly reducing the mobility and/or volume of hazardous
substances in the media and preventing the continued migration of
contaminants into the groundwater. This response action will
greatly reduce the possibility of contamination of existing
drinking water supplies and potential future water supplies.
This action represents the final remedial action to remove
contaminants from soil and groundwater. The major components of
the selected remedy include the following:
a.
On-site construction of a liquid phase carbon
adsorption groundwater treatment unit.
Groundwater will be extracted and passed through a
liquid phase carbon adsorption bed. The
contaminants would adhere to the activated carbon,
which would then be removed from the site and
disposed of at a licensed facility. The treated
groundwater will continue to be discharged to the
sanitary sewer system under existing Permit Nos.
491010 and 491520, or alternate method of
discharging water that complies with applicable
law.
b.
Continued groundwater extraction (pump and treat)
until cleanup standards are achieved in all
present and future wells at the Jasco facility.
Table 4.1 depicts all groundwater cleanup
standards that shall be achieved.
c.
Maintenance of hydraulic control (pumping of
water to control the flow of the plume) to
prohibit the further vertical and horizontal
migration of the groundwater plume. This
requirement shall remain in effect until
cleanup standards are achieved.
continued quarterly groundwater monitoring at
all monitoring and extraction wells on the
Jasco site during the cleanup period.
Groundwater samples shall continue to be
collected to verify that cleanup is
proceeding and that there is no migration of
contaminants above cleanup standard levels,
beyond current boundaries or into the deeper
B zone. The frequency of monitoring shall be
decreased from quarterly to triannually two
years after all site soils have been
remediated as shown by soil confirmation
sampling. The frequency of monitoring shall
be decreased to biannually once groundwater
cleanup standards have been achieved in all
site wells and stabilized for one year.
d.
2 .
-------
Sampling and reporting requirements for the
Jasco site are contained in the Sampling and
Analysis Plan for the site which is part of
the Administrative Record for the site.
e. Installation of additional extraction
(pumping) wells, in a quantity and at
locations to be determined by EPA, to improve
the performance of the groundwater extraction
and treatment system.
f. Treatment of all site soils containing
chemical concentrations greater than the
cleanup standards shown on Table 4.1 with the
enhanced biotreatment method. Under this
method contaminated soil shall be excavated
and placed in ar. enclosed container. The
soil shall be mixed with nutrients to
encourage digestion of contaminants by
microorganisms. The container shall have an
air distribution system along the bottom.
Air drawn through this system will provide
oxygen to the microorganisms and also extract
the volatile organic compounds. The air-
stream shall then pass through an activiated
carbon adsorption system. The carbon will be
taken off-site and disposed of at a facility
with a permit to accept hazardous waste.
g. Sampling of site soils beneath the production
facility, the drum storage area, and the
underground storage tank area to ensure that
the concentration of contaminants in these
areas do not exceed soil cleanup standards.
This sampling shall commence within six
months after completion of treatment of soils
located in the drainage swale area. If
contamination exceeds the cleanup standards,
the soil shall be treated as set forth in
subparagraph (f) above, and if necessary,
subparagraph (h) below.
h. Off-site disposal of site soils containing
residual concentrations greater than the soil
cleanup standards after biological treatment
has been completed.
i. Restrictive easement (deed restriction). Jasco
shall be required to file a restrictive easement
in the Official Records of the County of Santa
Clara, which prohibits use of on-site shallow
groundwater for drinking water purposes and
controlling other subsurface activities. The
restrictive easement shall remain in place until
soil and groundwater cleanup standards are
achieved.
3
-------
5.0 STATUTORY DETERMINATIONS
The selected remedy is protective of human health and the
environment, complies with federal and State requirements that
are legally applicable or relevant and appropriate to the
remedial action, and is cost-effective. This remedy utilizes in-
novative technology, alternative treatment (or resource recovery)
technologies to the maximum extent practicable and satisfies the
statutory preference for remedies that employ treatment that
reduces toxicity, mobility, or volume as a principal element.
The remedy will take approximately 10 years to complete for
groundwater and 2-5 years to complete for all site soils. A
five-year review, pursuant to CERCLA Section 121, 42 U.S.C.
Section 9621, will be conducted at least once every five years
after initiation of the remedial action to ensure that the remedy
continues to provide adequate protection of human health and the
environment.
John Wige1 Date
Deputy Regional Administrator
-------
DECISION SOHKARY
-------
PART
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
SECTION
1.0
1.1
1.2
1.3
1.4
1.5
1.6
1.7
2.0
2.1
2.2
2.3
2.4
3.0
4.0
5.0
5.1
5.2
5.3
6.0
PART II:
DECISION SUMMARY
COftEHTS
site Name, Location, and Description
Site Name and Location
Regional Topography
Climatology
Adjacent Historical Land Use
Hydrogeology
Water Use
Surface and Subsurface Features
site History and Enforcement Activities
History of site ownership
History of Site Activities
History of contamination
History of Enforcement Actions
Community Relations
Scope and Role of the Response Action
Summary of Site Characteristics
Sources of Contamination
Description of contamination
Conclusion
Summary of site Risks
PAGE
1
1
2
2
3
3
5
6
14
14
14
15
16
18
19
25
25
25
27
32
-------
PART
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
II
SECTION
6.1
6.2
6.3
6.4
6.5
7.0
8.0
9.0
9.1
9.2
9.3
J.o.o
J.1. 0
COH'1'EN'l'S
Contaminant Identification
Risk Characterization
Presence of Sensitive Human populations
Presence of Sensitive Ecological Systems
Conclusion
Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate
Requirements (ARARs)
Description of Alternatives
Comparative Analysis of Alternatives
Ground Water
Soil
Acceptance criteria
statutory Determinations
Documentation of Significant Changes
PAGE
32
35
36
37
37
45
52
57
58
6J.
63
66
66
-------
PART III:
RESPONSIVENESS SUMMARY
III
Responsiveness Summary
67
-------
TABLE
4.1
4.2
4.3
4.4
6.1
6.2
6.3
6.4
6.5
6.6
6.7
LIST OP TABLES
TITLB
summary of Selected Cleanup Standards
Highest Concentrations Detected in soil
Maximum Concentrations Detected in Shallow
Groundwater
Standards, Proposed Standards, and Action
Levels for Drinking Water Sources
California and Federal Regulations
Constituents Identified During Remedial
Investigation
Baseline Risks Posed by On-site contaminated
Groundwater
Baseline Risks Posed by On-Site Contaminated
Soils Based On Potential Contaminant
Migration To Groundwater
Historic Frequency of the Detection of
Target Constituents in A-Aquifer
Groundwater samples
Potential Pathways of Exposure to Contaminants
Originating at the Jasco Site Under Potential
Future Land-Use Conditions
Potential Pathways of Exposure to Contaminants
originating at the Jasco Site Under Current
Land-Use Conditions
Summary of Federal/State MCL/AL, Selected
Cleanup Standards for Groundwater and Health
Related Risks to Groundwater Cleanup
Standards
page
21
22
23
24
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
-------
LIST OF PIGURES
FIGURES
TITLE
1.1
site and Location Map
Jasco Location Map
1.2
1.3
site Plan
1.4
Existing and Former structures
Boundary Between Confined and
Unconfined Zone
1.5
1.6
Villa-Mariposa Area Precise Plan Map
Location of Wells and Direction of
Groundwater Flow
5.1
5.2
Delineation of Drainage Swale Area
PAGE
8
9
10
11
12
13
29
30
-------
.;i'\1f.D sr""f'.s-
;t ft \
{S~
'4-~ ~
"'"",( PR()'1f.
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
REGION IX
75 Hawthorne Street
San Francisco, Ca. 94105-3901
PART II. DECISION SUMMARY
This Decision Summary provides an overview of the problems
posed by the Jasco Chemical Company site ("the Study Area"), the
remedial alternatives, and the analysis of the remedial
alternatives. This Decision Summary explains the rationale for
the remedy selection and how the selected remedy satisfies the
statutory requirements of CERCLA.
1.0
SITE IIAKE, LOCATION, AND DESCRIPTION
1.1
SITE IIAKE AIm LOCATION
Jasco Chemical Company
1710 Villa Street
Santa Clara County
Mountain View, CA
The Jasco Chemical Company site consists of the property
located at 1710 Villa Street in the City of Mountain View. The
site consists of 2.05 acres currently owned by Harry M. Anthony.
Fiqures 1.1 - 1.4 shows the site location, site boundaries, and
property boundaries.
The City of Mountain View lies in a relatively flat portion
of the Santa Clara Valley approximately 40 miles south of San
Francisco (see Fiqure 1.1). There are approximately 67,000
people within the city of Mountain View (5 1/2 miles x 3 1/2
mile~), with the closest residence located about 50 feet west of
the site. There are 4 elementary schools and 3 playgrounds
within the 3 miles surrounding the site. The closest school is
located within one mile of the site. This is a residential
setting, dominated by single family homes to the south, and the
Villa Mariposa apartment complex to the east. Single and multi-
family dwellings located along Higdon Avenue border the Jasco
site to the west. Villa Street is located south of the site and
the Southern Pacific Railroad main line right-of-way borders the
site to the north.
Printed on Recycled Paper
1
-------
The Jasco site is at an approximate elevation of 60 feet
above mean sea level. The surrounding topography slopes gently
toward the north-northeast. Surface water on the developed
portion of the site drains generally toward the north-northeast.
The only surface water near the site is permanente Creek, which
is about 600 feet northwest of the site. permanente Creek is a
perennial stream that flows north-northeast a distance of 3.5
miles before reaching the Mountain View Slough which drains into
the San Francisco Bay. The creek itself is channelized,
concrete-lined, and is primarily used for drainage and flood
control. .
In the past, surface water from the Jascosite collected in
the drainage swale area located in the rear of the facility. In
addition, surface water was discharged to three on-site dry
wells. The on-site dry wells were destroyed in April 1988.
surface water runoff is currently being collected in a 4,000
gallon tank before being discharged to the City of Mountain View
sanitary sewer system.
1.2
REGIONAL TOPOGRAPHY
The study Area is located in the santa Clara Valley which
extends southeast from San Francisco Bay and is bounded by the
Diablo Range to the north and east, and by the Santa Cruz
Mountains on the west (see Figure 1.5).
The santa Clara Valley is a large structural depression in
the Central Coastal Ranges of California. The Valley is filled
with alluvial and fluvial deposits~from the adjacent mountain
ranges. These deposits are up to 1,500 feet in thickness. At
the base of the adjacent mountains, gently sloping alluvial fans
of the basin tributaries laterally merge to form an alluvial
apron extending into the interior of the basin.
1.3
CLIHATOLOGY
The San Francisco Bay Area has pronounced wet and dry
seasons with mild wet winters and warm dry summers characteristic
of a Mediterranean climate. The area lies in the path of winter
storms which periodically sweep inland from the North Pacific.
Freezing temperatures and snow are extremely rare. Rainfall from
the winter storms range from moderate to heavy. precipitation
data is available from the many weather sta~ions in the area.
Records show the average annual rainfall to be about 14 inches.
The site averages approximatelY 10 to 14 inches of rainfall per
year. Over 75% of the total annual rainfall in this area occurs
during the winter months of November through March. The average
annual wind speed is approximately 6 to 7 mph (about 3 m/sec)
with slightly stronger winds occurring in the summer. winds in
the area are predominantlY from the west northwest.
2
-------
'i "
.~:. ;;. "; ~!. :' ..
. ~'t~~ -~-
-- ._._-"~-,- ~---_..- - -- ~-
1.4
ADJACENT AND HISTORICAL LAND USE
Historically, the 2.05 acre Jasco site has been zoned for
industrial purposes. The Villa-Mariposa Area Precise Plan
establishes land use within this portion of the city (see Figure
1.6). The Jasco site is part of the Villa-Mariposa Area which
includes a mOderate-density residential neighborhood. This 23-
acre area is bounded by the Southern Pacific ~ailroad, Shoreline
Boulevard, Villa street and the rear lot lines of residential
properties fronting Higdon Avenue. Prior to 1970, the property
was zoned MM (General Industrial) District. Eighty-five percent
of the property was previously occupied by the Pacific Press
Publishing Association, an industrial printing/publishing house
for the Seventh Day Adventist Church. In 1983, the Press
announced that it was going to close its Mountain View facility
and sell its property. with the anticipated move of the Pacific
Press operation, the city reconsidered basic land use provisions
within this area. The Villa-Mariposa Area Precise plan provides
for transition of this older industrial complex into ~, ,'"
residential area. The Plan provided for the amortization of'
existing industrial uses and buildings. The property is
currently zoned P (Planned community). The plan sets other
industrial/office uses as nonconforming if they do not follow the
Master Development Plan. The Jasco facility was designated as
"high-hazard occupany", and as such its use at 1710 Villa Street
was to be terminated by December 1993. All of the Precise Plan'
properties have been redeveloped, except for, the Jasco property.
In an Environmental Planning commission meeting' on July 15, 1992"
Jasco applied for a two-year extension to their amortization.
The commission approved the extension, which allows the facility
to remain operati29. on the current site until December 1995. '
"
1.5
HYDROGBOLOGY : Ii'
\
Regional Hydrogeology
The Santa Clara Valley groundwater basin is divided into two
broad areas: 1) t~ forebay, and 2) the confined area. The
forebay occurs along the elevated edges of the basin where the
basin receives its principal recharge. The confined area is
located in the flatter interior portion of the basin and is
stratified or divided into individual beds separated by
significant aquitards. The confined area is divided into the
upper and lower aquifer zones. The division is formed by an
extensive regional aquitard that occurs at aepths ranging from
about 100 feet near the confined area's southern boundary to
about 150 to 250 feet in the center of the confined area and
beneath San Francisco Bay. Thickness of this regional aquitard
varies from about 20 feet to over 100 feet.
Several aquifer systems occur in the upper aquifer zone
separated by aquitards which may be leaky or very tight.
Groundwater contamination at the site occurs within the upper
aquifer zone. The lower aquifer zone occurs beneath the
practically impermeable regional aquitard. Numerous individual
3 -
-------
aquifers occur within this predominantly aquitard zone and all
groundwater in this zone is confined.
Site Hydrogeology
Three higher permeability aquifer units have been identified
within the upper 70 foot section at the Jasco facility. The
units have been designated as the A-, BJ-, and B2- aquifers. The
A-aquifer within the study area is encountered at depths ranging
from 22.0 to 35.5 feet below ground surface (bgs or 28 feet above
mean sea level). The thickness of the shallow A-aquifer ranges
from 0.5 to 13.5 feet. In well V-7, located 8 feet west of 1-2
on the median of the Central Expressway, the A-aquifer is
represented by 13.5 feet of alternating layers of sand, gravel,
and clay. Well 1-2 is represented by 14.7 feet of gravelly sand
and silty sand. A comparison of boring logs shows that the
thickness of the A-aquifer decreases towards the west on the
median of the Central Expressway. The bottom of the A-aquifer
extends to depths of 28.0 to 42.7 below ground surface.
The A-B1 aquitard is composed of clay to sandy clay with
vertical permeabilities that range from 3.1 x 10~7 cm/sec to
2.8 x 10~6 cm/sec. The thickness of this aquitard ranges from
6.5 feet at 1-1 to 17 feet at 1-2, and 14 feet at 1-3. The
vertical permeabilities at 1-3 and 1-2 are similiar (1.2 x 10~4).
The Bj^aquifer is encountered at depths ranging from 42.0 to
47.5 feet bgs with the bottom of the aquifer at depths ranging
from 54.5 to 57.5 feet. The thickness of the Bx aquifer ranges
from 11.2 feet at 1-1 (gravelly sand), to 7.5 feet of silty,
gravelly, sand at 1-2, to 9.0 feet of gravelly sand at 1-3.
The B1-aquifer is separated from the underlying B?-aquifer
by a low permeability unit designated as the 8^62 aquitard. The
Ba-B2 aquitard was found at 59.5 feet below ground surface. The
aquifer material here consists of sandy clay with a vertical
permeability that ranges from 2.9 x 10~~ cm/sec at 1-3 and
2.8 x 10~8 cm/sec at 1-2. The B2 aquifer was penetrated only at
1-3 and the top of this aquifer was penetrated at 57.5 feet bgs
and terminated at 71.0 feet without reaching the bottom of the
B2-aquifer.
Drilling logs indicate that the C-aquifer is approximately
150 feet below ground surface and is separated from the B-aquifer
by the B-C aquitard. The B-C aquitard consists of two clay
layers, 7.9 and 12.1 feet in thickness. The confining layers are
separated by a 20-foot thick cemented graven layer.
The deep aquifer is of drinking water quality in areas of
Mountain View and beneath the site. The direction of groundwater
flow in the shallow aquifer is generally toward the northeast
with an average gradient of 0.004 ft/ft.
-------
1.6
WATER USE
The following groundwater wells are located within a three
mile radius of the site: .
Mountain view Municipal Well numbers 8, 9, 10, and 17
City of sunnyvale Losse Well
City of Palo Alto Emergency Wells: Fernando, Matadero,
and Meadows
The City of Palo Alto supplies all of its drinking water
needs by using the Hetch Hetchy Reservoir. The Hetch Hetchy
Aqueduct carries surface water from the Sierra Nevada Mountains
about 120 miles to the east. There is no apparent route through
which existing domestic water supply wells could be impacted by
site contaminants because the groundwater flows to the north and
Well #17 is west and Well #18 is east of the site.
The total population served by groundwater within this 3
mile radius is as follows: Mountain View 67,000 people;
sunnyvale 212,000 people; Palo Alto Emergency Wells 56,000
people. In 1987 Mountain View identified well MV-10 as an active
well producing 800 gallons/minute from between 450 to 800 feet
bgs. Well water supplied 10% of the drinking water for the City
of Mountain View with Hetch-Hetchy suppling 90% of the drinking
water supply.
The Jasco site appears to be within the zone of influence of
Well #17 which connects directly into City transmission mains.
Mountain View well #17 is located within 2,000 feet northwest of
the Jasco site and is screened from the 236 to 560 feet bgs in
the C aquifer producing 1/2 million gallons/day. The drilling
logs for well #17 showed an aquitard that is significantly
thinner than those seen in other areas of the city. Mountain
View Well #17 was shut off on December 14, 1986. This action
occurred so that city officials could determine whether or not
contamination from the Jasco site was impacting this well. The
well resumed pumping in 1988 after it was determined that the
site was not impacting well #17.
There are a number of beneficial uses of the .surface water
and groundwater. Local surface waters include permanente creek
and San Francisco Bay. The groundwater is a potential drinking
water source. The existing and potential beneficial uses of the
surface waters (South San Francisco Bay and permanente Creek)
include:
f.
g.
h.
i.
contact and non-contact water recreation
cold fresh water habitat
fish spawning
f ish migration.
rare and endangered species habitat
wildlife habitat
estuarine habitat
navigation
shellfish harvesting
a.
b.
c.
d.
e.
5.
-------
j .
k.
industrial service supply
ocean commercial and sport fishing
Existing and potential beneficial uses of currently
taminated groundwater in the vicinity of the site within
shallow and deep aquifers could be adversely affected if
spread of contamination is uncontrolled.
uncon-
the
the
The existing and potential beneficial uses of
groundwater underlying the site include industrial
supply, industrial service water supply, municipal
water supply, and agricultural water supply.
the
process water
and domestic
1.7
SURFACE AND SUBSURFACE I'EATtJRES
The site is enclosed on three sides by an 8-foot high
cyclone fence. The fourth side of the site is bordered by the
Southern Pacific railroad tracks. The actual plant, offices and
storage areas are located at the rear of the'property and occupy
approximately 3~,000 square feet of the total 89,300 square
feet(2.05 acres). Approximately 66 percent of. the property is
vacant land. The facility is a combination of tilt-up concrete
production area with a built-up roof which provides additional
fire protection. The production area is 4,000 ft2 and completely
explosion-proof wired and heavy-duty sprinklered. The finished
goods area is ~2,000 ft2 with heavy-duty sprinklers and in-rack ..
sprinklers for storage of flammable finished goods. storage and
process areas have reinforced concrete floors. The production,
finished goods, warehouse and drum storage areas are each
surrounded by a berm to prevent unoontrolledreleases. The
production area is separately bermed with a curb approximately 4
inches high. This area also contains a putty mixer, filling
machine and above-ground tanks. The warehouse area is separately
bermed with a curb approximately 4 inches high around three sides
with the non-curbed side floor sloped to the interior of the
building. The drum storage area has a ~o-inch reinforced
concrete floor and is bermed with a curb approximately 7 inches
high. A "clean room" which has a separate 6-inch high berm is
located within the production area. The production area is
separated from the finished goods area by a ramp with
automatically closing fire doors. The physical characteristics
of the loading and unloading areas are a combination of asphalt
and concrete. The nearest off-site buildings are residential
apartments. These apartments are about 50 feet from the property
line on the northwest side.
Eight underground storage tanks were installed on site in
December ~976. These tanks are tar-wrapped and constructed of
single-wall mild steel. Chemicals stored in these underground
tanks include the following:
6 -
-------
capacity
Tank #
Gallon
contents
1 12,000 Methylene
Chloride
2 10,000 Paint Thinner
3 6,000 Paint Thinner
4 6,000 Denatured
Alcohol
5 5,000 Methanol
6 6,000 Deodorized
Kerosene
7 5,000 Lacquer Thinner
8 5,000 Acetone
Pentachlorophenol was stored in tank #3 until July 1985.
other chemicals stored on site include creosote, turpentine,
toluene, methyl ethyl ketone, ispropanol, and xylene. Another
500 gallon underground tank of unknown age existed at the site
and was used to store diesel fuel until 1987. The tank was
present on site prior to Jasco's occupation and was removed on
October 2, 1987. At the time of the removal the tank was
corroded, and contained numerous small holes. Diesel fuel vapors
were also present in the soil from beneath the tank.
"
~
7-
-------
..-
,
,~'i~.!'\. ,l'" 2:.;'''-;''''';.'' . ,: ~~~r,' L~ J....../ t.....~"",.,...),.,.,_1 :~'" '-.j"" c:q i I~'" t"j~ """~.!-:"!!i:I;,," I... U t,
)' /" '\ .' '" . . \... J ...... ~ ...,..."'... I -. -'0 ".. . D-.tl'i' =".., ~ . '"
~;:, ./'" \- ,~,{'''\~~ "/":--1..,, ',/'':'!) ~. " \.....::,,-.:-" ..ItO~~..;.J::...;" .\~' 1.. ".' .:::;'~~~;::';,,:' ~~ ,~""', !', "., ',:, ,~..;:. ,:,~ 'i',,;-;c::;.?!:',. toll" ';" ,u',' I' "
';:'rh)C~,'- "l!.~;~! /' I~\!~ ,.~~~~} "', \~.,~ '''Lr-'''-~' ~', i\ ';-"'t'-- ..:.:I'-'~'- ~~, ~'] I ".., Ir.'~, \~.... :,:::;:,~::;'i' .-,-,.. . \.). ;~,;
, -J "" " '''''.'(' "'.. ~'...'\" ,", ' ... . -'-',-,-.J "".,..",,' ~'~.., . 1_,.» ,,,:1",'" t'. ~ \" '
,:~...":>..:.!,"";.' J,I;:'}'.~~- ,')-.....': 'I, )" '\ \01' . ~~.....' ."CIt :,1', ~ ~'.1~"",:'" ""'- :-; ;'1:'; ';;':,\~;-:"I"14'ct,'. ",' ,....,j., '" ,....., ~' '-., ~:' .' .,',
, ,',)0 ;~~, I::"':' ~~..l Y \..; ,:I-fi:.~, :t ~"'- ,/~-~' --""..,r-,:.:,y.c'\-:;:-;ll;' ,~~~..,,~) '-,I---,'i- -......"...,.... ' ~ /' .:uII\ -:. ,,", ,,~I II I I
',;" A"'l.t: '..:..~...'-,. v/ -,[ .: "" L'~?~"'~ ~'....,. .j-~"~"""""'" "\'I',:'i/,;~':11 ," ", " ... 1..,., ,-:" 'I~'~~::.'~::' ,J, f'''' ~- '~. \' ',' "
".~.~,,-Q ..It,~,(.'~ .," ".....c.~:..~, -', ...''''''''; -, .. -,~"....:........, ~!:.":'gt:t"':~'" '~." ,~ ',' ., .~'i I ,.....J:'ill.1",',," L.. \t '.,,"'.,", ,',,-'
:,T, ~a/,,~ ._~.t:.., 'f.. ......, :.,~ ~T~ :'-, '>. ,; ,f~..!V;~"" a,3Y~" ~~ . !, C,III,..,I, I'ch, ,t~' i~" I'" ,;,\ "U,-,.~": ,)"', -~"'7"":..." t\ '. },' " i! ,.
:. /~~ t d'dup':~' ,,":',,:~~~fJ:/-;...>l'~; ~}~~I!'J~"t~" --"':f,fllfAft R;,~~""iI~"f/;' :'>~< '~,:'~,1i~' ,'I ~r~~'~I~"T' if~"::::';'~:'~")/'''';': J," ~ '.+\ --',;:':~:..! .,;", ....::
j: (. t,,,.' 'N )oo+"~ .." "'-:;"'~~\'~ '\~ .~'// ,:\:.~ ~ .. ,,"t, , "I:) "'~' ~"""", t 1.J1 .' -~\. ~ " ; """ .. "'1" . . ",.,',", '. i' \..-
~~ .I.<,!., "':"~~.;;~('~1:,;;,~..[t-..:.f.c!!~(,("O~;.~~' ')~7'~'/1 ~~"',i~:::.q~~.... ~.'8Ji: ',I,!.1.r.t~{~ ! ~I)r; ..',...:~;!: 'If> "',',., ~:,;,:\.
. ,:") 7,;, ''oj ,.i ",' ;'....J,: q;!W::"",..iIi~l~ 5:', .,' ". t !...; '...:z.(c... ,,#,! .I ':~,.... i', "".,::::;::-. Jh. ... ,"''''",' _Ii":~or:-''f:-''o)' ':: ,"', . '", ,~,' " -,:
-;-:,/l ~~f~',:";,j ~..", . ,~,~"<"'" ,,:,:\ ""'/,i~, ,-s.... r)1-~/"~ ,,, -,..;"~~~:~ ,-i I.::"""'~~ ' 't"~' "~: 111[. ~..i! ',~I'~n":!i ' ',:-... '~:... t.:-, :"..... :,,..."..., I ",
, ii" ..U",,-' I .. ."',' ... r. ,.' !O~ .",...~.,. 0' ~ . ''''':""". ~..)i ~ ,fr".. "~ 1--"'" .:1' '-.'. J ,. ~ ~~rn .P7' ,: ""'.-:.."!'oJ ......
."~' ,~'. -'-. ~ "".",' .,..t. ; )r.,..l..b~'" tT .:~~:'~hO"",~ '''''''..:1 ;'.\l,.:4....C" ~tl:.".. ." :.~.. ~,,," r~,~:,:.l'.. ',J' :,. ,. , ...'" ~~"" . i.:::: . ........:~. ...
/ ,,:'~~'~~J" '~~ci.,t. ;;:. . "'~.. -~~""'~'='I'J-.... ,:l >"'.Jl,,"O ~ ,/,~,,,""""'~;.':..3r.;ul~h~,;t:~,.., ...~, ' ,"""" ,,,,,;,,,,,,,,,.~ "i ' :/., "....~. .~~~ '. .', '. /'
':\,).""~/"/,:,~,,'F.\ "-,~.!'-~.~{.~"",,.,:.'~'.' """-' ~:.A...f;"'~" '7". ,", 4"1~.t....'...~... '~""""t,,'..~"'.--;~Ch,f'.. ,,0 !~"~'. '.. ',.......~:.t;. f~'i;'~.(t'!."'~"""\"~"""-'''~~~~':''~ ."',...o'
.~;, ~..~"-!'" )fo:' """""~:1"..........'" . .:..~.~.,~.~..... ..J. .;... .: 'I l ""'"..,., .~' >It..,'l ..a..;-", ;; r,. _lie, ~ ':..:: "''VP''.'-''. : ~ )'.~'t-~..". .. ....,:-.. "'.'J-~.--..:: ~ .-'0,,,,,,,:-:-, .
""'\., ,!,'J." .,~ ,.,10 ~.,:,"~"'\~'-"::~"~~ ,~,' ',"i,,/ "..?t.,':'~~'i~9,',,::'";'",',!~I.;-'''~'':'!:'~,~~:::: ~ ",:::)::"'-r~~ ,:".,~,~;'~ ':',...:.,: .! j '-">- ::-~,,:,i,r:~~~
1>~ ''i;ir;,~~ro'\:,::'''.':~;~i:~;""",~''.''",r?'~;~~ ~,"J~;;'::.Af.,.>"~7ii;'~.~ ,,::~,..f..e;J:t~~..~;:\.I ',:, :~~:-.....~~,~,.", :'T"'~.'""."'":''' .. ~ .\.~
, <;,~~' o\~~~Cf,' :..'~'~, ,1i:l:..lCRs~'rlCI{Y;\' ~"'~': , ,~. ll'>''j;:j,,;:~;:'; ""f:,;~~~.)lul1qlr.'::lJ;~'i"!t.;J ~J~A"~Js : ,~r.;::';,! :,"'~7:'-"'''-' i',I':..' "/:..
.. ,J JJt :J&~ .c.'... ~!:.! t"'/:"" 'f' ...;l,~:;''''''',...... "":,,.A ~,it' ,1 ,- r 1, ~t.4 ,r;;!C.'4.. ',: r .,..,9 ~'.....,,. ,,"'Z";' '".., ~. h ' "
~. .". ~ ~ ~....y ",.,."",,,,,,., .,~ '-1;:"~""4II" ",~,"'t ~"""'" "fV(' I.".... ., .. AO' -0. ....- -,' , I. '/~
:''';-:'--:!--~'-I'''' ' ,f,,? ,:~t ';;!)""~:!.t',~,~"l\L '~"/.j;It'~'''I'OI\ ,;t~:-~.'ill"; 'P".'I SITE LOCATION 1-"";~.',vt,~;~' '... ',;, ,"'r.OIJt:f:~f '~'.',.,,'" J it," ~ :'
, ~ ,AV( ,-,,;t, \I ,'''' , ',"'" 'f' Clrlt' "" 'I', " ..... ", "',.." ,.. ,''''' ,"" .,..,. -, ~, -'
,',-,",'",''' .' 'a~' :;:",.~' .. ',' .._~ ' .~ ..l.', I" "....,: ~ "" . , ,-"'" ',"'" .... ", ''''hi if' kh ''''..., " III" "'~ ,"""
...,..,........' ;.1' t~'!Ii' "..: ",t' ~""/:'':''-'':''O . .. .~Cb ':'~....' . ".,," ,. ,,;""~~:"~'i~;~;'"'''t.t...!f~~'//:''' '''\: .' '" "'~::r=,:.':"jt,.:;.' ",.i~' .. " "/,~~:,:~,
"! ~ .~.:' ~.f".:-..' '---~'I::.i II.. '" 'Q~~'r:.." .~t:!.I. -('",.. ,(1"'...1 ~""i:""-!.J' h.,,- ",..'."'\;' ~'.. l r:t.~...~....
":""'~'~'''''''''~'''''';''::' /1' ."1. ""~(;I, ~, 'J;: t!,l Mliftl1li1J;'I',' ",,' -'.':/:10 [ . ~",,,,"'''.j'~ ,-, ,:....' ',"'~ ~t , .... ':' U...... ;~;,;,; /4-'v'" !
'~~,~-;;""'~~"i-;,."';:"'Oj"!,::., ",,',' <" --~""::~"i~~'~' ," ~~rh'\~'," /''''1 :>"""<"'", ,.':1'-';,.':;"",' '. ..""....'''''' ,,~'t;~"'" "~' ... "
'~:'~,~ftl"fti1t . ~ .:;""',', :<, t,~,', r,..., ',t "~~r\.) t? .i ~....~ J.' ~ 'l~'Jlt fI]I:......... ",' j," "'.........,.. ',.. If ';-.;.:!,~)~ot,~ ~
'~~'''''''''' -t' ~~":J~}<" ' , : ...~.;:."Y ,~"c';~,~""'-" ...~r .. (!r~/"-'~'" "~'rJi.,.l1:, "l:~ 91olf:"n'i;' ~/\;, ,:'-S..~~k..~ 1;(~.~'\Ifl~~~~, A ;: '. ~\~ '/J '
,,:~' ,,;.,~, ~ ': 'I!._- \.' ... r'~~""",'f>"/: '~ ,.tc.~~l,., i/~~~~(~,~"'f)ttJ!?rS"tr,..< ":".~ '., "J!: ',!'Oft/ .,.J.~~i ,t ~" "~';~'~'ig.; ~t:, "'/" . '~:' '
" j "-'-J : ", "-.1,:' .t.; .1>.".' I. ",""~ ',,r( fh !""'~ ) ''':;'>~''''l' '/"I;~ .' "",.. r."",,\,~..,..,. ";" ,.', /.' ~"~, ~~." 't'~. ". 'I, ' . \~
j, ; '. ~ 'j fr"..I, ,.IIJ¥''''''; /, J'." .I' f.'~' ,i, :'t,r.:.,~,. 1,"'"",' .t ""'~..I 1'.::i-1.~,:,1;O,;,-./::..;:.';h<."" I '';: .. .'1,"; !,' "".~R~"'" ~~
,-d; i",-t~:......_~..' ,7 )'--'1;..., iJ'~I;" , ....':-: ' ' U l".....f:t '';-'''''{.,.,/ {'J' l (""';"'~ ,!I' '#'11'" """',:1'''' " It ",';~iI ::1. ' ,.., , ,, ..:...' !;:;~, ':.,'", ,\,,1 '"
:: ,~"':-'-)'i,::-.t" /,'.i ,!~/..,. ~ 1" ': , /.. ,~" ,,~ . '~"'..:..' " { "','\,....'" ,,;. ,,~;!J":i"y~ : "'::' "" ,..':' '~;'I" : \! ',':' (.""" ' I~".!' " 'I,», ,I', ,~~~.
..,_....,' ~" ,:"",~,P:':'~~-'.~,,!.I'I:,..)..,......Jf:=--~."-. ,...,. t~.. .\\~....:! 4t.)I;"l'~(hS'I" ,4',' ;: "',f., ,,~,"., ,~/"... '.: "I~' ..~, ,t (~:...." ,,"i""", .....~ ,'~
i I~,' ," ,,'''n'~',' ,; <,J,'V(: ';- C-~"._'- ",........~...".",':~',"~'~"" ,'.. ~. "...." ~ '~",' '.. 'l~. "~ I r. -,..:~,-.' "'",~','" "", ,';",",
';.,. o' ,'''' "'..., ": -"'.l .I I ., ..t "'~ I: \\ c. I ......: 'tit'..... f. /au'I:''''/ .ff . . ,"'..-J:::t '...' ~.. . "" ;. ..'... "~ '-""0 .., .
"'0:..-",-" . 0" Ii ~r'-.~' t~ :t "1,.l1li"''''1\ "".. I ,'''......'.~ ...?~.I.. ~ 0. I, ')I.~""'f" -,., .... """~"",,z:,......t:.:\' '" t
:' I ':. ..,"'.. . :.].. I ~ .',td ,. ......, ~/~"",w...,:".'U.'~" : !'" ,~' '- -.. .;~.:" "., ..' '.'" ~'.",:, : i"'.;~."" #'\,,',~ .,. ".;'~rh )J'1 ~ i.-\ ,. :..-.. ".....,~;:.: :,,;' ,~~ .": : ,. ", '. ..
~"'i'-r"...'-;."..,~ "lrh~~\,t;8 1 .; !'! f>-ml.U~ ..,....,.._,.,...;~~~..!",;.\\~, ~''';,7:'''''''';-'''''''~ """~:'1'':.",....::,:"':';=-''l~'''''",, '\' .. '...~ ,~~ ',''''':,:.:I&:~ ~ ~,,;-"'-;';' !,;,i~
"",~"''''''''',I~'\'''' ~i ;' ~ ~ ~ 'n~. /,-,\,....."..... )\,:AI.,f"/",! \"'~'F'-;;"":"::'-:"~~";,I ':""~ 'h"..~ . ,IJ~"",: . ,..., "":,",,:0 "t.....\,~~
"''''.-';-'' ""'''''''~I..L..'''~''''''~~I'''~~''',;''J''!...i'''''~'':''''''';'~' ~-!_"...,"_:"~~,l~~.t~~;,:>,~ J'; 'C'(f;"''''/'~''''":o,:.rl',~ ;~t.:,:~'o,: ~""~.-...... 'l~" ~i'" O:,I)~"'" I., ~." ,~.......... :.J~':~r..t').
:: ) I ~, ~,~,"Jtti~ i ':1 ~AVC . ~~..~ .,...-.-..:\ _.._"::- . ". ,.: I.,~:.".. :,0' ~....,.......... ,0 ,.. ,I...." . " i"~'" ......,,: ~ I .,' . I' ',"'-.. ~h( "'i.
1 0 S .f\:, h'!f \:J 8"'''1 1 i' ~lm..ft"lC ! 'D'r' \ i ..'.,....' "".."" I.n'~"'i'; "'r'II'., ',~ ""1,' ..:-.~.;' ,r ;;~' " ,'" .t ,.. "',. ;ill ,\,.. ,.,:; ',', , ,;, . "~. ,,' ' .
. I . .. .~- ~ o_,..,..--~..... I . ~ fr!.a 1 ~'l., ., j .It: ,t;~~,WlI.';' '..i "'.... !. ." ,".. : ." . '. . ~,.. .. ,. -1-'" "I .
, . ",. '.-' ...... I -.'. to.' ,,,.... ""'~", . ~ -~ . i ~,,~. \t',.... ,'r,........,......I.'-='''f,\'l. ... I
: 81"i".-" :'1 ~ 7' l.., " 'r"'~'" .,'. .' ,. \.. '. 'I"" . . .'
I '-:' ~~"'~"__'"'' ~'" : " " ' ',' ",'~' 1 ' I
.'~f.', '.- J I" :~II' t"". r "._-:" ~f.}~,,~'i~'~~:'-' ,/, . ""I,t~l.:m,r1't"T-'i."~C'\'J.,~r:::::'~>' :.t .! ~I , "
. I ., " ~'I'"--"'-""'f""- .,. -. ~,.u.-.,..I.
", 'r..oj' ':r'I'lIIvl'w~.' ...:: I ~,,~ ''I', " "'. I j':' , '" -
.:"~., ::",'}" F ..!.,.:= :~-."II~i: ~ '""'..'. .~~,..-~,..."..: .tj.;.... ) ".t.}.:,.. ~ ' .'.:-'.: . .#-==-
. .. t 1 yr ,', ...,,' ",,"'1111'.~.,.., "", I -\ I -....;. l'h .,,-, '.. I ~.... - """=-
,"'r.:, t'~3 \:; ~'., H..-, o'."""'"r'..""""" .,.-,..~~ll ".. 1.4,.- .,' -....J --, -
,,' SCALE :~;~ """, ,:' ,'" ~I \ ,..I."" ",,:!' ; I,! ',,~l:~I": .£:--
, 111 20'00 ;v,"''7'~''.t''''''''~1~YL,,''''''~ '\:' :1 i '~:'..' Oo'~~I~J =-
, ,. ,. I' I' ""oO , I'A .IIA~.. "" i! '
I',', 'I; J I "', ,; ::.. :,~" t~:',:",.I" ~':'_::,:,:'-',!:: C
,,: """~,, ,', ...~ " I '., "".','" """Di,\,'.""",1 ... ";"'~'"!'''''.''' ,-.. !I,"" OHM Corporation
~!r~.:,.:t: -.. '..., .:.. ... . ."~.~~'~, ~ .i t: !J. ~ I . .. : ~ IL i:'~
""'':L',:~ ;.\. . i ". 0 "'.~' ','" ~":.. :... I,..,..~:,,:~jo..:..o' ...'.:::." ::. ~.::~;.!l..,~ . ':, .
Figure 1.1
Slt9 Location Map
Jasco Ch9mlcal Corporation
Mounta'n V'ew, Californ'a
-------
I
\0
I
~
.
.A WELL "7
~D(
~ SITE
FIGURE 1 ~ 2
JASCO LOCATION MAP
-------
j
t. N J J
«
I
r')
o 1.4 ERIDAN WAY
~
r--
0
0
0
Ua::
z..,
., -II)
.~~
OZ
I
J
J
I >-
(:]
0
....
..,-
<3
....
:r
U
0
C\
1
>--
11)1
'"
Z-
~oJ
< 1::1
C!:: 0
O~
~
'"'
z< t.i
OU ~
i= . Z
<~
cr.., 0
0\&.1 0
a..cr C)
crU :i:
o~
(,)::!
~Z
x-'
O~
i ..
~ t..
.J
..J
J
-----------------------------
CENTRAl. EXPRESSWAY
-----------------------------
SOUtHERN PAC1F1C 'TR»ISPORTATION COMPANY
REAR YARD MFA
PROOOcnON
fACIlITY
".
tJNUS£O DoIPTY' CONTAINeR
STORACE MEA
FRONT YARD AREA
.ORU'-I
ST~ AAtA
JASCO
CHEMICAL
CORPORATION
VILLA STREET
FIGURE 1 .. ;3
SITE PLAN
JASCO CHEMICAl.. CORPORAll0N
MOUNTAIN VIEW. CAUf"ORNIA
PREPARED fOR
\
f
'\
..
'-
~
..
~
..
~- OHM
Corporation
JASCO CHEMICAL CORPORATION
MOUNTAIN VIEW, CALIFORNIA
o
c
10
-------
r')
~----~~~~----~T-
I I I
I I I
I I WAREHOUSE: I
I PRODUCTION I AND I
ARfA SHIPPING
I I ~ I
I I I
I I I
I --- I _.l_~":~-rl _L
UNUSED EWPTY L - I
~rJG~==u::':tA.
[Jr:U:l TANK AREA
/5 B~~ UNDERGROUND
I [I 6 OIESEL--- n
I LJ LOADING AREA I~~O\IED) U
I
I
01
. c;> I
>-:: I
ml
Z~ I
3=
o
a:
a..
C1.
<
>-
m
o
&.J
~
()
&.J
:r
()
~
I
~
..
9
..
UNUSED ENPTY CONTAINER
STORAGE ARfA.
GA.TE
----------
L
DRUM STORAGE AREA
---------
...
~
"'"
~
"'"
....,
'"
'"
....,
'"
....,
'"
'"
'"
'"
D
R
I
V
E
w
A
y
~
..:-
...
'"
'"
...
...
"'"
"'"
...
...
'"
..,
...
....,
...
....,
...
'"
...
~
""
""
...
...
"'"
~
~
...
"'"
Chemicals Stored
1. Melhylene Chloride
2. Point Thinn.,.
3. Pentachlorophenol/Point Thinner
4. Denotured Alcohol
5. Methonol
6. Deodorized Kerosene
7. Lacquer Thinner
8. Acetone
~~ OI-1M
Corporati0I?-.
11
Gl.1E
D
R
I
V
E
w
A
y
LEGEND
\
---
BERMED AREA
FENCE
)( )( )(
. Ccntoiners stored in these oreo$ hove
not been previously used to store
chemicals .
PARKING ARfA
~
."
....,
'"
- .
muCK lURNAROUND
ARfA
...
...
...
...
....
...
.
... ... ... '"
...., ... '" '" ... 'If
FIGURE 1.'4
EXISTING AND FORMER STRUCTURES
.lASCO CHEMICAl CORPORA110N
MOUNTAIN VIEW. CAUf'ORNIA.
PREPARED FOR
JASCO CHEMICAL CORPORATION
MOUNTAIN VIEW, CAUFORNIA
-------
Bdrk
~
'"
..
-.,
\ . or "
\,J) .. or ",
..
, "
_:~- ")"
.. ~
,
I.,...,,"
IOhbm~ HOlOCENE lAY MID'"
[Q![) OUATttWrr AUW1UM'"
~ Tt.."",..,..,.;.Ttmwn' !!OAOCIC" ,
/ 'AA! "'".,.. 0Ihw ".. ..d............,...
"'II!IIM'IIrII."""'.' OPIIed I
. '. IOUIIOMY IEtWEEN CQtIFMO lOHUHD VHCOttfICfO ZOHe.II'
/~/. COM'MO ZONE IENEA,," CEHTE"~ BASIt, Ul«iOHfItI:O ZOt«
OCCURS AlOHO 8ASit """'Olt
Figure 1.5
~
.
:;
""' - II "If
l'
..,1"
I
11'\ ($
I
"OUf'f"S
-------
- ... I I
;:)
z
...
~
II)
i
c
..I -
o
II.
~:~
CENTRAL EXPRESSWAY
S.P.R.R.
:/I9ScO S.P.RR .
-------II!I--_.-
-----------
S.P.R.R.
I
I
. I
-...-------------
. STREET
Residential
.....
CWo
~ DANA
z
III
>
C
I
T
Industrial
o
a:
.~
..J
:>
o
[Q
w
z
:J
w
a:
o
:I:
en
T1
~
I"~ ~OOI
'1 .f'II '"
CAUFORNIA
m~~mm~
TI
~~l
\.
Villa-
ariposa Area Precise Plan Map
Figure 1. 6
)i: -
c
o
-------
2.0
S:ITE B:ISTORY AND BNP'ORCEHENT ACT:IV:IT:IBS
2.1
B:ISTORY OF S:ITB OWBBRSB:IP
The Jasco property is approximately 2.05 acres and consists
of one parcel of land. The property was originally settled under
a Spanish land qrant and is legally described as being a portion
of Lot 7 of the Rancho pastoria de Los Borregas. It is identifed
by the Santa Clara County Assessor's office in Book 154 on Page 2
as Parcell.
A baseline of 1937 was used to investigate the historical
. and current ownership of the Jasco property. This baseline was
based on preliminary investigation findings and was selected to
identify ownership of the property pre-dating industrial zoning
of the site. The documents reviewed establish historical
ownership dating back to 1937. The first title transfer during
this period occurred in 1951.
o'
On December 4, 1951 the property was aquired by Tom N. Tibbs
Corporation. The property was leased to West Coast Door
Corporation from 1954 through June 1974. West Coast Door
corporation manufactured and painted commercial and residential
doors on the site. The site was vacant from June 1974 through
November 1976. Harry M. Anthony, president and owner of Jasco,
purchased the property during September 1976. The deed was
recorded on November 5, 1976, and Jasco started operations at the
site during December 1976.
2.2
B:ISTORY OF S:ITB ACTrv:IT:IBS
..
Jasco's production process involves repackaging of bulk
chemicals into small containers and blending of chemicals to
produce proprietary products such as deqreasers and paint 0
thinners. Bulk solvents are received in tankers and stored in
the eight underqround tanks. Filling of the tanks is done by
gravity. Powdered solids are received in 55-lb bags and other
solvents are received in 55 gallon drums. In October 1984 a
putty mixer was added for a new line of products. The putty
consists of 85% filler - pigment and small quantities of linseed
or soy bean oil.
14
-------
2.3 HXSTORY OF CONTAKXHATXON
After a private citizen complained of solvents being dumped
at the site, in January 1983, the California Regional Water
Quality Control Board (RWQCB) requested that monitoring wells be
installed at the site to determine if the groundwater had been
contaminated. A preliminary groundwater investigation in June
1984, by Questa Engineering corporation revealed the presence of
chemicals in the soil and groundwater of the same type as those
used and/or stored at the Jasco facility.
Chemicals stored and used by the facility between 1983 and
1987 included the following:
Chemicals
gallons stored
per year
1,1,1 trichloroethane 500
acetone 52,000
coal tar cresote 35,300
denatured alcohol 23,000
deodorized kerosene 18,000
lacquer thinner 72,000
methanol 30,000
methylene chloride 200,000
paint thinner 300,000
A subsequent groundwater sample obtained in April, 1985,
showed the presence of pentachlorophenol and methylene chloride.
High levels of contaminants were present in soils located in the
drainage swale area at the rear of the facility. During the
remedial investigation soil borings were completed in the
drainage swale area, near the underground storage tanks, and
south of the drum storage area.
In'teriJa Remedial Acf;ions
Since February 20, 1987, the company has been extracting
contaminated groundwater from Well V-4. The extracted
groundwater is discharged to the Mountain View sewer system under
a permit from the city. 40 CFR Parts 400-424 provides effluent
guidelines and standards. Permit provisions allow discharge as
long as groundwater contaminant concentration levels do not
exceed 1 part per million total toxic organic compounds (TTO).
TTO is defined by 40 CFR 413.02 and the TTO must not exceed 750
parts per billion (ppb) for anyone constituent.
On October 2, 1987, Jasco removed an underground diesel tank
from the site. The tank was corroded with numerous small holes.
Samples taken from directly beneath the tank contained diesel at
concentrations of 360 parts per million (ppm), benzene at 3.0
ppm, toluene at 550 ppb and xylenes at 9.6 ppm.
15
-------
During March of 1988 a tracer leak detection system was
installed on the underground storage tank system. Tracer
chemicals are periodically added to the tank contents. Soil gas
samples are collected monthly from multiple probes located to a
depth of 12 feet within and surrounding the tank farm. Each
sample is analyzed for the tracer chemical to verify whether or
not a release has occurred. In January 1990 the system detected
tracer chemical coming from the paint thinner tank. This tank
was decommis~ioned for a year even though the amount of the leak
was below action levels. It was subsequently put back into
service when testing showed that it was not leaking at action
levels.
The primary source of chemicals detected within the vadose
zone can be found in the rear of the facility. The drainage
swale receives surface water runoff from both the south side of
the facility and points to the east. In the past surface runoff
flowed into a drain on the south side of the facility and then
entered an underground pipe. This pipe ran north under the
building and then connected with an east-west underground pipe on
the north side of the facility. The east-west underground pipe
emptied into the drainage swale which is adjacent to the
northwest corner of the site. The discharged water ponded, .
evaporated and/or percolated into the soil in this drainage swale
area.
During August 1988 Jasco submitted to the RWQCB ,a soils
characterization report and runoff management plan. Soil
contamination in the drainage swale included methylene chloride
at 3,400,000 parts per billion (ppb); trichloroethylene at
490,000 ppb; toluene at 1,700,000 ppb; and acetone at 270,000
ppb. During October 1988, Jasco responded to the soil
characterization report by excavating 572 cubic feet of soil from
the drainage swale area. The excavation depth extended to the
groundwater table (22-28 feet). The area was excavated by
drilling with overlapping large diameter augers. The soil was
disposed of at the Casmalia Resources Facility in Casmalia,
California.
A Surface Runoff Collection System was installed to
prevent further surface water infiltration across the drainage
swale area in early 1989. This system consists of a 10
millimeter thick polyethylene liner that prevents surface water
percolation. The area is also graded such that surface runoff is
angled toward a sump located in the drainage swale area. Water
is pumped out of this area into the sanitary sewer line. Surface
water in the front yard area is collected i~ a large dumpster for
timed release into the sanitary sewer line.
2.4
HISTORY OF BNFORCEMENT ACTIOHS
On August 3, 1987, the Regional Water Quality Control Board
(RWQCB) issued Cleanup and Abatement Order No. 87-094. The Order
required Jasco to conduct a remedial investigation and to submit
certain technical reports according to a specified schedule. EPA
16
-------
evaluated the Jasco site according to the Hazard Ranking System
and the site received a score of 35.36. ' This site was proposed
for inclusion on the National Priorities List on June 24, ~988
(53 FR 23988) and then became subject to regulation under the
Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability
Act (CERCLA) of ~980, as amended by the Superfund Amendments and
Reauthorization Act (SARA) of ~986. On December 2~, ~988, EPA
issued the U. S. Environmental Protection Agency's Administrative
Order Docket No. 89-0~ requiring Jasco to complete a Remedial
Investigation/Feasibility Study. In Update Number 9 issued in
October 4, 1989 (54 FR 4~015), Jasco was listed on the National
Priorities List.
Responsible Party Determination
EPA completed a Potentially Responsible Party Search for the
Jasco Chemical Corporation Superfund site during January 1989.
This search identified Jasco Chemical Corporation as a
potentially responsible party for the contamination at the 17~O
villa Street facility due to the handling and disposal practices
conducted by the company. The current owners and operators of
the site, Harry M. Anthony, Carol Jean Anthony and Lois M. Conley
have been identified as potentially responsible parties due to
their ownership of the property.
.'
.
~7
-------
I
I .
3.0
COHHtJ!aTY RELATIONS
A community Relations program has been ongoing for all Santa
Clara Valley Superfund sites, including the Jasco Chemical
Company site, and the requirements for public participation under
CERCLA section 113(k) (2) (B) (i-v) have been met. The Remedial
Investigation/Feasibility Study and Proposed Plan for the Jasco
Chemical Company site was released to the public on June 7, 1992.
These two documents were made available to the public in both the
administrative record and an information repository maintained at
the EPA offices in San Francisco, CA and the Mountain View Public
Library. EPApublished a notice in the San Jose Mercury News on
Sunday, June 7, 1992 announcing the RI/FS, Proposed Plan and.
opportunity for public comment at an evening public meeting in
the HountainView City Hall Council Chambers on June 24, 1992. A
thirty day public comment period on the RI/FS Report and the
Proposed Plan ran from June 7, 1992 to July 6, 1992. The pUblic
notice also was published in the Los ~tos Town Crier on
Wednesday, June 10th, and June 24th. An article discussing the
, Proposed Plan and public meeting was also published in the local
city paper entitled, The View. The View is a monthly
informational periodical funded by the City of Mountain View, and
was delivered on the first of June to every residential and
business address in the city. A presentation of the proposed
.final cleanup plan was made at the June 24, 1992 public meeting.
Representatives from the community, EPA, Jasco, and contractors
attended the public meeting. EPA staff answered questions about
problems at the site and the remedial alternatives under
consideration. A response to the comments received during this
period is included in the Responsiveness Summary, which is part
of this Record of Decision.
Fact Sheet 1, mailed in July 1988 announced the proposed
addition of Jasco to the National Priorities List and discussed
the future submittal of the Remedial Investigation Work Plan.
Fact Sheet 2 was mailed in January 1991 to residences and
businesses located within a 1 mile radius of the site.
Information in this fact sheet discussed results of the Remedial
Investigation Study, and announced future submittal of the Risk
Assessment and the Feasibility Study report. Fact Sheet 3 was
mailed in June 1992 to over 8,000 homeowners and businesses in
Mountain View, local government officials, environmental
organizations and interested individuals. This fact sheet
discussed the proposed plan, cleanup standards, and opportunity
for public comment at an evening meeting.
18
-------
4.0
SCOPE AND ROLE OF THE RESPONSE ACTION
This Record of Decision addresses the entire site which
consists of contaminated soils, groundwater, and surface water.
This action addresses the contaminated groundwater and soils
which are a principal threat at this site. Site soils pose a
principal threat due to risks posed from migration of
contaminants into the groundwater. The purpose of this response
action is to prevent any further migration of contaminants into
the groundwater, prevent possible future exposure to the public
of contaminated groundwater, and to prevent contamination of , the
drinking water aquifer. The response actions will be performed
to meet the final site treatment standards listed in Table 4.1.
These levels are based on Applicable or Relevant and Appropriate.
Requirements (ARARS) and health protection criteria for
groundwater (see Table 4.4).
Thirty-one chemicals were detected in the soils,
groundwater, and surface water. sixteen chemicals have been
identified as the chemicals of concern in the groundwater and
soil. Cleanup standards have been assigned to all chemicals of
concern.
The selected remedy presented herein addresses the docu-
mented potential threats from the site to groundwater and soil.
Surface water concerns have been addressed by interim actions.
Treatment of the contaminated groundwater will significantly
reduce further ho,~~zontal migration of contaminants and prevent
the possibility of contaminants migrating into the drinking water
aquifer. Treatment of contaminated soils will reduce toxicity
and mobility of contaminants and prevent contamination of the
groundwater. Cle~nup standards for all contaminants of concern
shall be met. The health-based cleanup standards for soil were
developed based on the assumption that the groundwater would be
used for potable and domestic purposes. Health-based cleanup
standards for groundwater were derived based on the groundwater
ingestion and inh~~ation pathways under a reasonable maximum
exposure residential use scenario. The final groundwater cleanup
standards selected were either federal or state maximum
contaminant levels, whichever is ~ore health protective. The
health-based cleanup standards for soil were then estimated using
the health-based cleanup standards for groundwater (KCLs),
Summer's analytical leachate model and site-specific
hydrogeologic conditions. The final cleanup standards for the
chemicals detected in soils will provide a level of protection
necessary for residential use and prevent contaminant
concentration in groundwater from exceeding KCLs.
SOIL CONTAKINATZON
There are currently no ARARs estab~ished for cleanup levels
in contaminated soil. The highest concentrations of contaminants
detected in soils prior to the 1988 excavation and post
excavation are depicted in Table 4.2. Approximately 1100 yd3 of
contaminated soil is present in the drainage swale area. The
19
-------
volume of contaminated soil in the underground storage tank area,
and beneath the production facility shall be quantified after the
building is razed. This action will require soil sampling to
determine the exact amount of soil to. be treated in these areas.
The sampling plan shall be approved by EPA prior to the
performance of any data collection, and shall follow the
protocols approved in the site Sampling and Analysis Plan/Quality
Assurance Project Plan (SAP/QAPP). All soils determined to be
contaminated shall be treated to the cleanup standards specified
in Table 4.1. contaminated soils located in the former diesel
tank area exceed cleanup. levels for benzene and toluene and shall
be treated to the cleanup standards specified herein. PRC
Management Inc. under contract to EPA reviewed the original .
baseline risk assessment and developed health-based standards for
chemicals of concern in soils at the site. The purpose of soil
treatment is to reduce the contamination to a level that no
longer threatens to contaminate groundwater at levels above
MCLls.
GROUNDWATER CONTAKIHA'1'ION
contaminated groundwater flows in a northeast direction
along the hydraulic gradient of the shallow zone potentiometric
surface. Groundwater flow within the A-aquifer is deflected
towards well V-4 due to the groundwater extraction system. In
.1987 a 400 foot plume of contaminated groundwater existed beneath
the site and spread into the median of the Central Expressway.
Since 1987 the groundwater plume has been reduced by
approximately 100 feet (see Figure 5.1). Groundwater in the deep
aquifer dpes not currently contain ~levated levels of
contaminants. The highest concentrations of contaminants
detected in past groundwater analyses are: 1,1 dichloroethane
(2,200 ppb) 1,2 dichloroethane (2580 ppb), 1,1 dichloroethene
(170 ppb) methylene chloride (142,000 ppb), and vinyl chloride
(16 ppb). Table 4.3 shows historical groundwater quality data.
Cleanup standards for 1-1 DCA, 1,1-DCE, methylene chloride, and
vinyl chloride and pentachlorophenol were exceeded in the samples
collected from January 1991 through January 1992. .
The Superfund program uses EPA's Groundwater Protection
strategy (U.S. EPA, 1984) for determining groundwater value and
vulnerability to contamination. EPA has classified the
groundwater at the Jasco site as Class 11B, which is groundwater
that is potentially available for drinking water, agriculture, or
other beneficial use. The shallow groundwa~er is also considered
a potential source of drinking water by the state of California.
The federal criteria for underground drinking water sources are
set forth in 40 CFR 143, and EPA has determined that site
groundwater does meet the federal criteria to be determined an
underground drinking water source.
The groundwater cleanup standards for the Jasco Superfund
site (see Table 4.4) are based on EPA Maximum Contaminant Levels
(MCLs), California Department of Health Services (DHS) MCLs
(adopted), DHS Action Levels and Agency for Toxic Substances and
Disease Registry (ATSDR) Toxicological Profiles.
20
-------
NOTES:
':' 1'" \ ,,,,;'1':'-',' "~"I
'r'~.t~- '.'~. .' ~.': r ';;
!' "
TABLE 4.1
SUMMARY OF SELECTED a.EANUP STANDARDS FOR GROUNDWATER AND
FOR SOIL BASED ON POTENI1AL CONrAMINAN'f MIGRATlON TO GROUNDWATER
1
0.7 3000
1 1000
0.2 100
2000
Federal
.. ..n'. ..
....... ....,. ....
............ ............. .
'/if.*;:W.t~t:C
MCL (mg/L)
........... .... ..........
. ............ P.... . ..
.................-.,. ....... .
':~~~T
..i:.::..:.::!.:I~.II!!..:.'!:!!:::
A. Carcinogen-MCL
Benzene (A)
o.oos
1,1-Dichlometbane (C)
1,1-DichIoroetheoe (C)
..,........... ... .", .
,','''.','.".',".",'.'.'.'.',',".".,',','..'.',"..',",". ,',","
':::::::::::::::::::::r::::::::::::Qj)QS!::::
,"."'.',",',',',',',',",',',..",'...',",'..,",","..",'
,'"-,'...'..",",-",,,,,,,,,,,,,
.......,..................",....
0.007 ::)):ti::W:):::::::#~'~::(
1,2-DichIometbane (B2)
Methylene ehIorid;e (B2)
""""""""'''''' .. .
."..' ....".". -.'''''.,,,,,
O.oos .::::::.::::::I::::;;'\i::{:~#~:::::
0.005
0.001
. .... ..,.. ....... ..
.... ....... ..... .... ..
."" ,,'.....................
""""""""""""'"''''''
{::'I::I::IJ::ff~~\:::
Pentachlorophenol (B2)
Tetrachlorocthene (B2)
Trichloroetbeae (B2)
Vmyl cbloride (A)
B. Nonc:an:inogen-MCL
c-l,2-Dichloroethene
Ethylbenzeae
Toluene
1,1,1-Trichloroetbane
XylCIICS
C. Nonc:arciaogen 9110 MCL
Acetone
OIloroetbane
Diesel or kerosene mixtlile
MethaDol
Melbyl ethyl ketone
CLEANUP
STANDARDS
FOR SOIL
(SCSsI)
(mg,IKg)
Methylene chloride is the limiting chemical (EPA. 1991b). SCS - Selected Cleanup Standard
MCL - Maximum contamiDant 1evt:1
Gray" Selected Standards
1 mill" 1000 ppb
21
0.3
0.6
2
0.03
0.2
200
7
3
0.02
30
4000
10000
200
9
-------
mGHEST CONCPNI'RATIONS DEI'BC'lFD IN son.
TABLE 4.2
SBLBCIED
a.EANUP
STANDARD
CONS11TlIENI' (mg/tg)
t.l-Dichlorocthane (t,t-DCA) 0.6
t,t-Dichlorocthene (l,t-DeB) 2
t,2-Dichloroctbane (l,2-DCA) o.m
t,2-Dichloroethene (l,2-DCB) t
1.t,t-Trichloroethane (t.t.t-TCA) tOO
Acetone 30
Benzene 0.3
Chloroethane 4,000
Diesel or Kerosene Mixture 10,000
Ethylbenzene 3,000
Methanol 200
Methyl Ethyl Ketone 9
Methylene Chloride 0.2
Pentachlorophenol 200
Tetracblorocthene (PCB) 7
Toluene 1000
Trichloroethene (TCB) 3
Vinyl Chloride 0.02
Xylene 2,000
o dale of soil interim remediation.. October t987
mg/kg = parts per million
MAX. CONe.
IN srre SOIL
AFI'BR INTERIM
REMEDIATION CO)
(mg/kg)
MAX. CONe.
IN SITE SOIL
PRIOR TO INTERIM
REMEDIATION (.)
(mg,Itg)
ud
0.015
lid nd
6,100 11.000
1.2 170
60 60
D8 D8
0.05
490
nd
nd
37
210
22
-------
TABLE 4.3
MAXIMUM CONCENTRATIONS DETECTED
IN
SHALLOW GROUNDWATER
parts per billion
CONTAMINANTS 1984-1989 1990 1991
ppb ppb ppb
Acetone 1700 100 <10
Benzene 20 <5 <5
1,1 Dichloroethane 7800 290 650
1,1 Dichloroethene 190 38 38
1,2-Dichloroethane 2600 <5 <5
Methylene Chloride 142000 53 150
Pentachlorophenol 50 23 <5
Tetrachloroethene 8 <5 <5
(PCE)
."
Toluene 250 <5 <5
Total Petroleum 33000 1100 620
Hydrocarbons
Vinyl Chloride 16 5 6
.
23
-------
TABlE 4.4
STAIIDAIIDS. PROPOSED STAIIDAIIDS AID ACTUII LEVELS
DRIIIKIKG WATER 5altCES - -
CALIFCRIIA All) FEDERAL REGULATlOIIS
STATE FEDERAL
CONST! TUENT Proposed Proposed Proposed
MeL AAL MCL MCL SMCL MCLG MCLG
(1) (2) (3) (3) (4) (5) (5)
(1IIIII/l> (1IIIiI/L) (1IIIiI/l) (av/l) (av/L) (1IIg/L) (1IIg/L)
Benzene 0.001 0.0002 0.005 - 0.0 0.0
Carbon TetrachLoride 0.0005 - 0.005 - - - -
Chloroform - 0.006 0.100 - - - -
1,1-Dichloroethane 0.005 . . - - . -
1,2-DichLoroethane 0.0005 0.005 - - - -
1,2-0ichlorethene 0.006 - 0.07 . 0.07 0.07 -
Ethyl benzene 0.68 0.7 - 0.30 0.7 -
Methvl Ethvl Ketone . 2.0 - . - - -
Methylene Chloride - 2.0 0.005(1/94) - - 0.0 .
Pentachlorochenol . - 0.001(1/93) - 0.03 0.0 -
Tetrachloroethene - 0.002 0.005 - - 0.0 -
ToLuene 0...005 - 1.0 - 0.04 1.0 -
-
1,1.1-Trichtoroethane 2.0 0.2 - - 0.2 -
-,
Trichloroethene 0.2 0.3 0.005 - - 0.0 -
Vinyl Chloride 0.0005 0.007 0.002 - - 0.0 -
XyLenes 1.75 2.0 10.0 - 0.02 10.0 -
(1) Maxinun Cont8ll\inant Level for Prilllllry Drinking Water Soures (22 CCR 644)
(2) Applied Action LeveLs for risk appraisaL, California Dept. of Health Services. 1989
(3) Maxinun Cont8lllinant LeveT""':, Safe Drinlc:in; Water Act (42 U.S.C. Pub. L. 93.523)
(4) Proposed Secordary Maxi~...Cont8lllinant LeveL - Safe Drinking Water Act (42 U.S.C. Pub. L. 93-52
Safe Drinking Water Act <42 U.S.C. Pub. L. 93-523)
(5) Maxinun Conteminant Level GoaL (40 CFR 141, SuCpart f)
24
-------
5.0
SUMMARY OF SITE CHARACTERISTICS
5.1
SOURCES OF CONTAMINATION
The Remedial Investigation focused on the distribution of
volatile organic compounds in soil, groundwater, and surface
water at the site. Thirty-one chemicals were detected'during the
course of the .investigation, and fourteen.of the thirty-one were
detected infrequently and/or at very low concentrations.
Seventeen chemicals were identified as indicator chemicals as
defined in the Superfund Public Health Evaluation Manual, OSWER
Directive 9285.4-1. (USEPA 1988). The final indicator
contaminant list consists of the following; 1,2-dichloroethane,
1,1-dichloroethene, trichloroethene, vinyl chloride, benzene,
tetrachloroethene, methylene chloride, 1,1-dichloroethane, and
pentachlorophenol.
The soil and groundwater investigations identified primary
areas where releases of compounds occurred. These areas are:
the location of the underground storage tanks; the drainage swale
area, the location of the former diesel tank, and beneath the
production facility.
5.2
DESCRIPTION OF CONTAMINATION
GROUNDWATER
Jasco has installed and sampled fifteen monitoring wells in
the vicinity of the site to define the extent of groundwater
contamination (see Figure 5.1). All of these wells are useful
for defining the extent and nature of the groundwater plume.
Twelve wells are completed in the A-aquifer (22 to 35 feet below
ground surface "bqs"), and three are completed in the 81 aquifer
(42 to 57.5 feet bqs). A-aquifer well V2 was destroyed in 1988
by Jasco without EPA approval. EPA has determined that
groundwater in the shallow aquifer is a potential source of .
drinking water.
Groundwater flows in the shallow aquifer towards the
northeast (see Figure 5.2). Groundwater contamination has been
found in the shallow aquifer within a 400 foot area. Table 4.3
shows the maximum contaminant concentrations in the shallow
aquifer. Groundwater contamination extends under the median of
the Central Expressway. CUrrent data show that the plume extends
under the Southern Pacific Railroad track.
25
-------
Groundwater samples collected from wells that are located
onsite show high contaminant concentrations. Soils in the
vicinity of Well V-4 contained some of the highest contamination
at the site. Based on the second quarter 1992 sampling report,
only concentrations of contaminants in 2 of the fifteen wells in
the shallow aquifer exceed MCLs. The concentrations of 1,1 DCA
(380 ppb), 1,1 DCE (55 ppb), methylene chloride (18 ppb), and
vinyl chloride (10 ppb) exceed their respective MCLs in well V4.
The MCL for methylene chloride (36 ppb) is exceeded in well V3.
Well V4 with the highest average contaminant concentration, 380
ppb 1,1 DCA, is located in the drainage swale area (screened in-
terval at 28 to 35 feet); well V3 is located close to the
underground storage tank (screened interval at 22 to 35 feet).
SURFACE WATER
The drainage swale area was a pathway for the lateral
migration of contaminants dissolved in surface runoff. The
following contaminants exceeded the California state Action
levels for surface waters: methylene chloride (1300 ppb),
pentachlorophenol (200 ppb), 1,1,1-TCA (700 ppb), and 1,1-DCA (56
ppb).
The construction of the surface runoff collection system has
limited the amount of contaminants migrating within surface
runoff in the drainage swale area. Surface runoff from the front
yard area flows to the north or northeast and collects near the
production building. Surface runoff .from the rear yard area
collects in the drainage swale area. The runoff management
system directs all on-site runoff tp several concrete sumps.
This water is then pumped from the sumps and stored on-site in
storage tanks before being discharged to the sanitary sewer
system. Jasco's discharge permit requires that no contaminant in
~the effluent shall exceed 750 ppb and the total toxic organic
level of the effluent shall be less than 1000 ppb.
SOIL
Soils contaminated with chemicals of concern have been found
in the drainage swale area, the underground storage tank area,
the former diesel fuel tank area, and the drum storage area.
Contamination is also suspected to have occurred beneath the
production facility. Jasco shall be required to provide a
sampling plan for investigation of the soils beneath the
production facility. The production building shall be razed
after 1995 and this sampling plan shall be used to ensure that no
source area on site shall be left untreated.
During October 1988 572 yd3 of contaminanted soils were
removed (see shaded area on Figure 5.2). Excavation terminated
at the depth::at which groundwater was encountered, typically
between 22 a~d 28 feet. Soil samples were collected from the
bottom of th~ excavation after the excavation was complete. The
concentratio~s of chemicals detected in soil ranged from 0.179
26
-------
;- .,:, .- ----.-.-.~~,..,.- -- -- -- ,"""""i-- - ... -.-~~~--_. -
ppm to 53 ppm. The highest total chemical concentrations were
found in the easternmost portion of the drainage swale area.
Concentrations decreased towards the west. Fourteen chemicals
were detected in samples collected from the bottom of the
excavation borings. The concentration of the chemicals found in
these borings included methylene chloride (21 ppm), acetone (30
ppm), paint thinner (11.0 ppm) and xylenes (5 ppm). The.
significance of these concentrations can be found by examining
the soil cleanup standards listed in Table 4.1.
The surface area of the entire drainage swale area is
approximately 19 feet wide by 200 feet long. This area has been
subdivided into three units: PS-1, DS-2, and DS-3 Jsee Figure
5.2). The estimated surface area of DS-1 is 680 ft. The total
volume of soil within DS-1 is estimated at.755 yd3 (depth to
groundwater of 30 feet). DS-2 stretche~. 160 feet to the west of
area DS-1 and contamination extends apprAimately three teet.
below ground surface (pqs). The surface area of DS-2 is
approximately 3,040 ft2 (19 feet wide by 160 feet long) with soil
volume estimated at 340 yd3. DS-3 is the site of the 1988
excavation (572 yd3 soil removed) with an estimated surface area
of 460 ft2.
Chemicals of concern were also detected in the underground
storage area as deep as 36 feet bgs. Contaminants found in this
area include 1,1 DCE (37 ppb), 1,1,1-TCA (39 ppb), acetone (219
ppb), isopropanol (984), methanol (1408 ppb), methylene chloride
(322 ppb), and toluene (38 ppb). Methylene chloride was the only
contaminant detected in this area above its soil cleanup standard
of 200 ppb.
Soil contaminated with methylepe chloride was detected in
soil borings completed in areas south of the drum storage areas
(less than 3 ppm). Methlyene chloride (.250 ppm), benzene (3
ppm), toluene (.55 ppm), and xylene (9.6 ppm) were also detected
in borings completed in the location of the former diesel storage
tank area. Only the cleanup standards for methylene chlorid~ and
benzene are exceeded in this area.
5.3 CONCLUSZON
Data used to develop the Feasibility Study, to select
remedial alternatives and to develop conclusions and clean-up
standards presented in this Record of Decision were based on the
following data quality requirements:
1)
All data were collected under the guidance of a Quality
Assurance Project Plan developed under EPA protocols
and reviewed and approved by EPA Quality Assurance
Management staff.
All data were collected in accordance with procedures
presented in an approved Sampling and Analysis Plan.
The Sampling and Analysis Plan was developed in accor-
dance with EPA Region 9 guidance and was reviewed and
approved by EPA staff.
2)
27
-------
3)
Random sample splits were collected by EPA to confirm
the validity of data generated.
Selected data was validated by EPA and found to be
qualitatively and quantitatively acceptable.
4)
5)
There has been reasonable repeatability of the data
based on years of monitoring.
28
-------
~
«
I
I"')
o
~
,....
o
o
o
I.IERIDAN WAY
j
./
Apparent "direction of
A-aquifer groundwater flow
V-9
V-B
o
-----------
-----------------
(;)0:::
%"-1
-I%)
~~
oz
V-6
o
-----------
-----------------
~
o
'"'
~
0:::
Q.
~
>
CD
o
~
~
<..I
~
:I:
<..I
z<
0<..1
i= .
~r5
01&1
1L,a:::
0:::(,)
o~
1.);:)
:::EZ
x-'
oi
\
!!
~
~
..
o
~
..;
~
Z
o
o
C)
X
r
V-2
PRODUCTJON
fACIUTY
FRONT YARD AREA
I
. .. .
. V-:i
.
V-10
."
JASCO
CHEMICAL
CORPORATION
'.I!LLA STREET
'\
,~ OHM
Corporatio~-
o MONrrOR WELL LOCATION
FIGURE. .s ~ 1
DIRECTION OF GROUNDWATER
IN THE A-AQUIFER
JASCO CHEMICAl.. CORPQRA11ON
MOUNTAIN VIEW. CAUfORNIA
PREPARED f'OR
FLOW
JASCO CHEMICAL CORPORATION
MOUNTAIN VIEW. CAUFORNIA
-------
11\.01 SCAlC - ,'-JO.
OHM CORPORATION
WALNUT CRECI(, CA
DRAWINC 000.7402 -A4. ,
NUMBCR
CENTRAL EXPRESSWAY
N90 05-%
\
"'" 05-1
Toe or IIAl
T
. . . . . . . . . . . 3 . 0. . . . . . . , . 1 I . . I . . . . . ., . 5.2"
058-14' s-. .
5-5 . ~ 80-12: SB-'3 0 'I-II 0 50-00 058-8
o 0 C-)"-'\V .: 0 . . .
-15 - I 5-4 : . SI-11 8-10 .. 58-9
. ~.....
.
,
#'0 05-3
o
'-8
,.
c9
8-8
CONCRtn: PAO
PRODUCTION F'ACILIN'
.
Legend
o
Borehole Location
Impermeable Membrana Runoll ColI.cllon Sy8lom
FIGURE 5..2
LOCATION OF SAMPLE POINTS AND
DELINEATION OF DRAINAGE SWALE AREAS
.lASCO CHEMICAL CORPORATION
MOUNTAIN 'viEW. CA
PREPARED fOR
JASCO CHEMICAL CORPORA nON
MOUNTAIN VIEW, CA
.fi;.-
.=:- ~ OHM
"..
~
Corporation
-------
It
-a
::z:
..
Co'3
.. ",
~ --
~ - r:;
~ ::z: g
,... ~
.. ::D n
a a:ll:
~~
"'-
~"
. b"
~,...
ng
n -::D
;: ~ C!
:;; ~ =
: .... =
:8 G; c:t
- ..:II:
~ -t
~
:II:
..
I
.. =-
- ,. Q
nac:
f--c::J
-~..,,;;
o.."'-t
- ::D::u
=-=:.;
. 0 c:
Z-t
::;-
~~.
c za
n CD""
... . II:
:a~'"
"'~,--t
"'..,-=
CD ... .C0'3 ~
:: I r;:
'M'"
~~
-t,-
"'0
...=~
::;::~
-I:
ca:~-
. :z
.
a -
'CO
I'~
.
....
1/1
~
-
co<:
...
4
It
CENTRAL EXPRESS'AY
SOUTHERN PACIFIC RAILROAD
.'
...
:.-
~
...
--
z
...
z
iI
.
...
a.
HIGOOH AYE
IIER 10 IAN lAY
\
- -
- --
- -
V-8
NO(0.0005)0
0.1 00
Y-2
0.220
4.800
E X P l A N A T ION
0.220
o A-AQUIFER MONITORINO WELL
METHYLENE CHLORIDE CONCENTRATION IN ppm
O~OI LINE OF EQUAL CONCENTRATION IN ppm
\
- -
- -
"0(0.0005)
0.003
ND(0.0005)
110
.
SCALE
o
- --
Y-5
. NO(0.0005)
JASCO CHEMICAL CORPORATION
I
...
=-
-------
6.0 SUMMARY OF SITE RISKS
A baseline risk assessment was prepared by EPA's contractor,
Jacobs Engineering Group, during August 1989. This risk assessment
identified potential current and future exposure pathways.
Exposure to contaminants was not expected to occur under current
land-use. A future residential use scenario identified high
potential for exposure if private wells were installed in the area
of the plume. Air and soil exposure pathways were complete but
exposure is likely only if surface soils are disturbed.
PRC Environmental Management, Inc, EPA's contractor, also
completed a document entitled "Baseline Risk Estimation and
Derivation of Health-Based Standards for the Contaminated Soils at
the Jasco Superfund Site", dated May 4, 1992. This document
derived preliminary and final health-based standards for the
chemicals of concern in the soils, based on their potential to
migrate into the groundwater. The preliminary selected cleanup
standards for chemicals of potential concern in soils were derived
from the final groundwater health based standards which are based
on the federal or state maximum contaminant levels (whichever is
more stringent). The baseline cumulative health risks posed by
the chemicals of potential concern were also calculated based on an
assumption that groundwater is used for potable and domestic
purposes.
6.1 CONTAMINANT IDENTIFICATION
During the remedial investigation thirty-one chemicals were
detected in soil and groundwater at the Jasco facility. Fourteen
of the total were detected infrequently and/or at very low
concentrations. The chemicals that pose a significant hazard at
the site were identified by following a series of steps recommended
in the "Superfund Public Health Evaluation Manual and Exposure
Assessment Manual".
Chemicals of potential concern are listed in Table 6.2 and 6.3
along with their toxicological classification, excess cancer risk,
and hazard index. Table 6.4 depicts the historical frequency of
detection for contaminants found in A-aquifer groundwater. Sixteen
chemicals of concern were identified within the Study Area.
EPA assigns weight-of-evidence classifications to chemicals
that may be potential carcinogens. Under this system, chemicals
are classified as either Group A, Group Bl, Group B2, Group C,
Group D, or Group E. Group A chemicals (known human carcinogens)
are agents for which there is sufficient evidence to support the
causal association between exposure to the agents in humans and
cancer. Groups Bl and B2 chemicals (probable human carcinogens)
are agents for which there is limited (Bl), or inadequate (B2)
evidence of carcinogenicity from human studies, but for which there
is sufficient evidence of carcinogenicity from animal studies.
Group C chemicals (possible human carcinogens) are agents for which
there is limited evidence of carcinogenicity in animals, and Group
32
-------
D chemicals (not classified as to human carcinogenicity) are agents
with inadequate human and animal evidence of carcinogenicity or for
which no data are available. Group E chemicals (evidence of
noncarcinogenicity in humans) are agents for which there is no
evidence of carcinogenicity in adequate human or animal studies.
Several of the chemicals of concern at the Jasco site have been
classified in Group B2 and two have been classified as Group A.
The reasons for selecting the listed chemicals as indicator
chemicals are as follows:
1.
Each of the indicator chemicals were consistently
detected in the samples collected throughout the plume
area. Table 6.4 lists detection freqencies for these
compounds.
Each of the indicator chemicals possesses physiochemical
properties (relatively high water solubility and.
relatively low soil sorption) which tend to promote their
dispersion in groundwater. In addition, they are all
quite volatile and can easily escape into soil gas or the
atmosphere.
2.
3.
Benzene and vinyl chloride were identified as group A
carcinogens. Most of the indicator chemicals are
potential carcinogens. 1, 2-DCA, methylene chloride, PCP,
PCE, TCE, and vinyl chloride were identified by EPA as
probable human carcinogens (Group B2) based on available
laboratory animal data. l,l-DCA and l,l-DCE were
identified by EPA as possible human carcinogens (Group C)
based on available laboratory animal data. TCA remains
unclassified as a potential carcinogen because there is
inadequate evidence of its carcinogenici ty in animal
studies. Acetone, chloroethane, ethylbenzene, methanol,
methyl ethyl ketone, and xylene are noncarcinogens.
4.
The 1, l-DCA is a potential breakdown product of the
contaminant 1, 1, l-TCA. TCE breaks down into DCE and
ultimately vinyl chloride which has been detected at this
site. TCE, PCE and dichloroethane are commonly found in
degreasers and paint thinners which are produced by
Jasco.
EXPOSURE ASSESSMENT
. The baseline assessment identified potential exposure pathways
or scenarios that were examined under two distinct timeframes. The
current land use and potential future land-uses were identified.
The current land use involves industrial use of the property and
the future use is residential.
Human exposure to contaminants is not expected to occur under
the current land-use because the soil is not being disturbed and
access is limited. The potential receptors for contaminants in ::.he
soils located in the drainage swale area would be Jasco employ~es
and trespassers.
33
-------
Potential exposure pathways include those related to
contaminated groundwater. Potential human exposure pathways for
contaminants include ingestion of and direct contact with
groundwater, and inhalation of volatilized contaminants during
showering by area residents. Residential areas are located 50 feet
northwest of the site.
CUrrently, chemicals in the groundwater do not come into
contact with. humans, plants, or animals. Nei ther the A. or Bl
aquifer is currently being used for dri~ing water purposes. The
municipal water supply wells descend ~~ the the C-aquifer which
occurs at a depth of approximately 150 feet below the surface. The
closest drinking water supply well to the Jasco facility is
Mountain View Well #17 located on Rengstorff Avenue which is less
than one mile away. The closest surface water in the immediate
vicinity of the facility is Permanente Creek located abou~ 600 feet
northwest of the si te. Future exposure could occur.' during
excavation of the site, if the shallow groundwater was used for
drinking water purposes or if contaminants migrated into the C-
aquifer.
TOXICITY ASSESSMENT
Cancer potency factors (CPFs) have been developed by EPA's
carcinogenic Assessment Group for estimating exces~ lifetimfe cancer
risks associated with exposure to potentially carcinogenic
chemicals. CPFs, which are expressed in units of (mg/kg-day)-l,
are multiplied by the estimated intake of a potential carcinogen,
in mg/kg-day, to provide an upper-bound estimate of. the excess
lifetime cancer risk associated with exposure at that intake level.
The term "upper bound" reflects thJa conservative estimate of the
risks calculated from the CPF. . Use of this approach makes
underestimation of the actual cancer risk highly unlikely. Cancer
potency factors are derived from the results of human
epidemiological studies or chronic animal bioassays to which
animal-to-human extrapolation and uncertainty factors have been
applied.
Reference doses (RfDs) have been developed by EPA for in-
dicating the potential for adverse health effects from exposure to
chemicals exhibiting noncarcinogenic effects. RfDs, which are
expressed in units of mg/kg-day, are estimates of lifetime daily
exposure levels for humans, including sensitive individuals. Es-
timated intakes of chemicals from environmental media (e.g., the
amount of a chemical ingested from contaminated drinking water) can
be compared to the RfD. RfDs are. derived from human
epidemiological studies or animal studies to which uncertainty
factors have been applied (e.g., to account for the use of animal
data to predict effects on humans). These uncertainty factors help
ensure that the RfDs will not underestimate the potential for
adverse noncarcinogenic effects to occur. .
Table 6.5 and 6.6 shows the potential exposure pathways that
were developed in the Jasco Risk Assessment under current land-use
and future land-use conditions.
34
-------
. ~.. . .''- .
6.2
RISK CHARACTERIZATION
A Baseline Risk Assessment (BRA) dated Auqust 1989, was
prepared by Jacobs Engineering Inc. under contract to EPA. The .BRA
was conducted to evaluate current and potential future health risks
posed by the Jasco Superfund site. Since the potential for
exposure to contaminated soils by way of dermal absorption and/or
incidental ingestion is assumed to be very low to non-existent
(because the soil is not being disturbed), no current risk was
identified at the Jasco site. Potential future health risks are
based on exposures that could occur in the future if untreated
shallow zone groundwater was used for human consumption and
residential development occurred on the Jasco site. To ensure that
human heal th is protected, the BRA incorporated conservative
assumptions. Therefore, it is unlikely that the actual risks posed
by the Jasco site in the future would be greater than estimated.
Average case and maximum case scenarios are presented in the BRA.
The information below refers to the maximum case scenarios.
Excess lifetime cancer risks are determined by multiplying the
intake level wi th the cancer potency factor. These risks are
probabilities that are generally. expressed in scientific
notation(e.g., 1 x 10-6). An excess lifetime cancer risk of
1 x 10-6 indicates that, as a plausible upper bound, an individual
has a one in one million chance of developing cancer as a result of
site-related exposure to a carcinogen over a 70-year lifetime under
the specific exposure conditions at a site.
Potential concern for noncarcinogenic effects of a single
contaminant in a ~~ngle medium is expressed as the hazard quotient
(HQ) (or the ratio of the estimi:!ted intake derived from the
contaminant concentration in a given medium to the contaminant's
reference dose). By adding the HQs for all contaminants within a
medium or across all media to which a given population may
reasonably be exposed, the Hazard Index (HI) can be generated. The
HI provides a useful reference point for gauging the potential
significance of multiple contaminant exposures within a single
medium or across media. If the noncarcinogenic Hazard Index is
less than one, ~ considers the combined intake of chemicals
unlikely to pose a.~.heal th risk.
Using the above hypothetical scenario of future groundwater
use, the carcinogenic risk from ingestion and inhalation of VOCs at
the Jasco site is 4 x 10-2. A carcinogenic risk of 4 x 10-2 is
equal to four excess occurrences of cancer in a population of 100.
.. This exceeds EPA's acceptable carcinogenic risk range. for. cleanup
standards selected for a site: 10-4 (1 in 10,000) to 10-6 (1 in
1,000,000).
Using the same scenario, the noncarcinogenic Hazard Index for
ingestion and inhalation of VOCs from the use of shallow
groundwater is 87. This elevate~ Hazard Index is caused by a
methylene chloride concentration of 142,000 ppb which is a
historical high for the site. During 1991 the highest level of
methylene chloride detected on site was 150 ppb.
35
-------
Thus the carcinogenic risk and Hazard Index associated with a
"no action" remedy exceed EPA's acceptable carcinogenic risk and
Hazard Index range. Table 6.2 shows the calculation of the
carcinogenic risk and noncarcinogenic hazard index for baseline
risks posed by domestic use of on-site contaminated groundwater.
Table 6.3 shows the baseline risks posed by on-site contaminated
soils based on potential contaminant migration to groundwater.
Overall, methylene chloride contributes nearly 90 percent of the
total carcinogenic risk and 85 percent of the total noncarcinogenic.
hazard and is the limiting chemical, which simply means a
chemical (s) that is responsible for much of the baseline risk
assessment, because of either high toxicity and/or presence in high
concentrations at the site. Methylene chloride is a class B2
carcinogen; it has been shown to cause liver cancer in animals, but
there is inadequate or no evidence of carcinogencity in humans.
1,2 -dichloroethane contributes. the next highest percent of tile.
total carcinogenic risk. The concentrations of methylene chloride
have decreased over the last few years. In 1991 the highest
concentration detected was 150 ppb. site cleanup will probably
depend on cleanup of 1,2-dichloroethane which continues to .exceed
its groundwater cleanup standard. The carcinogenic risk at the
cleanup standards (for all chemicals listed on Table 6.7)
associated with the potential future use scenario of groundwater
ingestion and inhalation of VOCs from groundwater, using the
maximum exposure scenario is 1 x 10-4. Methylene chloride and 1,2-
dichloroethane are the limiting chemicals, therefore in cleaning up
these chemicals to their respective cleanup standards the
concentrations of other VOCs will be reduced to levels below their
cleanup standard(s). The carcinogenic risk for methylene chloride
at its cleanup standard is. 8.0 X .10-7 , and the risk for 1, 2-
dichloroethane at its cleanup standard is 3.0 x 10-6. These risks
were calculated using a potential future use scenario with a 30
year duration exposure per EPA guidance.
The selected remedy is protective of human heal th and the
environment -- as required by section 121 of CERCLA -- in that
contamination in groundwater shall be treated to at least MCLs and
falls wi thin EPA' s acceptable carcinogenic risk range (10-6 to 10-4)
and noncarcinogenic Hazard Index of less than one (0.042).
As shown on Table 6.7, the groundwater cleanup standards for
all contaminants are Federal or state (MCLs), either adopted or
proposed, whichever is more stringent. Table 4.1 shows the final
groundwater and soil cleanup standards for the Jasco Superfund
site. The final cleanup standards for the ~hemicals detected in
the shallow zone, when achieved, would result in a future
carcinogenic risk level for groundwater ingestion and inhalation of
contaminants of 1 x 10-4.
36
-------
6.3
PRESENCE OF SENSXTXVE HUMAN POPULATIONS
In order for a chemical to pose a human health risk, a com-
plete exposure pathway must be identified. The greatest potential
for exposure to chemicals at the site would be from residential use
of groundwater. The closest residences are approximately 50 feet
northwest. The Jasco site will be used for residential use in the
future. The closest school (within a. half mile) is Castro
Elementary School located at 505 Escuela Drive with approximately
680 students.
6.4
PRESENCE OP SENSXTrvE ECOLOGXCAL SYSTEHS
Two endangered species are reported to use South San Francisco
Bay, which is approximately 4.5 miles north of the site. The
California clapper rail and the salt marsh harvest mouse are
reported to exist in the tidal marshes of the Bay and bayshore.
The endangered California brown pelican is occasionally seen in the
Bay Area, but does not nest in the South Bay. Ranges of the
endangered American peregrine falcon and southern bald eagle in-
clude the Bay Area, but these species do not use Bay and bayshore
habitats. The Jasco site does not constitute critical habitat for
endangered species nor does it include or impact any wetlands.
6.5
CONCLUSXON
Actual or threatened releases of hazardous substances from the
Jasco Superfund site, if not address~d by implementing the response
action selected in this ROD, may present an imminent and
substantial endangerment to the public health, welfare or
environment. Based on the fact that a variety of the chemicals
detected in the Study Area pose significant health risks as
carcinogens or as noncarcinogens and complete exposure pathways
will exist under future residential land use, EPA has determined
that remediation is required. .
37
-------
TABLE 6.1
CONS'ITI'UENI'S IDEN'I1PIED DURING REMEDIAL INVESI1GA110N
Detected Infrequently
CONTAMINANI'S and/or at Very Low Concentrations
(c) I,2-Dichloroethene
(t) I,2-Dichloroethene
l,l,l-Trichloroethane
1,I-Dich1oroethane
l,l-Dichloroethene
I,2-Dichloroethane
I-Methoxy, 2-Propanone Phenol X
Acetone
Benzene
Bromodichknomethane X
CaIbon Tetrac:hloride X
Chlorobenzene X
Otloroethane
Chlorofonn X
Ethanol X
Ethylbenzene
Isopropanol .~ X
Methanol X
Methyl Ethyl Ketone
Methylene Chloride
Miscellaneous Hydnx:arboas X
Pentac:hlorophenol X
Phenol X
Tetracb1oroethylene
Toluene
TPH as DiCKI X
.
TPH as Kaosene X
TPH as Paint Thinner X
Trich1oroethene
Vinyl Qloride
Xylenes
38
-------
ChemlC81
Acetone
Benzene
Chloroethene {Q
1,1-Dlchloroethane
~ji;I=:,:,,:::.::.::::t:i
eJs.1,2.DIchloroethene
Diesel or kerosene mixture (g)
Ethylbenzene
~iiiM~~;u::::;){..:j::,,:}:
Methyl ethyl ketone If)
Pentachlorophenol
Telrechloroethene
Toluene
1.1.1-Trlchloroethane
Trlchloroethene
Vinyl chlortde {Q
Xylenes
TOTAL RISK
Table 6.2
Baseline Risks Posed Bv On-Site Contaminated Ground Water
OW Maximum
Concentration
(Me) (malU
Welght-of
Evidence
Carcinogenic
HBSgw
(maIL) (a)
Ex-
Cancer
Rlok (b)
3E'()5
2E.03
3E-03
"...,",'... "....
1e4)2':)\: ..
"
7E'()5
5E..08
Relative Cance, Noncarcinogenic HaDrd R.latlve HI
Contrlhutlon HBSgw Index Contribution
" (c) (malU (en fe) " (e)
4E+OO 4.9E.o1 0.57
0.08
5.71
6.18
. . . '" .. . .
:":~1;~::::'....
0..7
0.01
0.02
1.36
1 00.00
3E+Ot 6.2E-03
BE'()1 2.9E+00
.:;:::::.:::::::::::::;:i:i~!:!{::/:::':::::::::::J::::::::;:':;:;i.~..}::.:;:?:..:.)i...': .
4E'()1 3.6E.02
3E+00
2E.f.00 3.!5E.02
.';:::.':::::::iii'i'!:::r!';:.::: 'i'::f.}''''',:1e.+at.t
6Eo01 UE.o1
1E+00 4.6E.02
4Eo01 2.2E.02
3E +00 1.1 E'()1
2E+00 1.3E+OO
0.01
3.30
0.60
0.04
0.04
:. .'.'...'.:...~:39 .
0.29
0.05
0.03
0.13
1.52
..:.:.:.
... -"n. ............. ..... ......".......
'"';';"""':';"';':':"'.:'"" . "::'.":':.':-;':':.".-:':'",:'.' """":";""";'.".'"':-:':':'"";"".. '" .", ... ,"".
:.}:;::}:.~..:=:t.. :'::'~e~:?i(! . .':.:'~~~(/(L ... .~:6t:):
0.04
100.00
NOTES:
!:tJjiMififtib_:if8Wi!jlii~~j'ijjiIMiiiaBm~iaf.:f$};r:::::r'::::m:r:}:::[r::::{::~:;;:r:::r{:::r' Blank meanllhere are no available 10xlclty values
1.8
0.02
0.18
2.2 C 9E-04
0.17 C 7E'()5
:,..J::::::::;.::::gl.:::::::.::jf:':::::::':::)::::::~:.j'//':::;:::.::::!:.:'~E~t):::: :'.:."..[
0.013
A
6E-04
7E.oa
6E-04
4E.02
2E+00
3.3E.02
(a) Carclnogenlo HBSgw - HeaJth.baIed ltandard for ground water was buecI on lhelngeslJon and Inhaladon routes (resldendal RME) and . target exC888 cancer risk 011 E-oa (Tabla 3).
(b) Excess Canoer Risk. 1 E.oa . (MC I carcInogenlo HBSgw).
(c) Relative . Contribution . (OIemlcal-tpeclflo RIlle I To~ Rl8k) . 100.
(e) Noncarcinogenic HBSgw - HeeJth.based ltandard for ground water was buecI on the IngeatJon and Inhalallon routal (residential RME) and a target hazard Index of 1 (Table 4).
(e) Hazard Index - 1 . (MC I noncarcinogenic HBSgw).
(I) Chemical was found In ground water but was not detected In aoI18.
(g) ChemloaJ found In 00II1 but not reported for ground water.
0.057
":':':::;.1":::'::::
0.115
0.05
0.008
0.36
2.04
0.019
0.018
. 0.062
B2
B2
7E-04
1 E-03
B2
A
3E.03
3E.05
39
8.7E+01
-------
TABLE .6 . 3
BASELINE RISKS POSED BY ON.SITE CONTAMINATED SOILS BASED ON POTENTIAL
CONTAMINANT MIGRATION TO GROUND WATER
Chemical
Mulmum
Concentration
Welght-o'
EvidenM
IMQ (malKa)
Acetone
Benzene
278
3
A
.j
""'\1
Chlor08thane (I)
1,1.D/c;hloroeth- 21
1,1.Dlchloroe1hene 13
1,2.Dlchloroethane 3.98
cl.',2.Dlchloroethet,. 4.8
DleeeI or kerosene mbdur8 7000
Ethylbenzene 170
Methanol 80
M;jij~':~:::':':'::f:f::::::,:::::}:' :,,:,::::.::::.::::.::~:.:::.t:U:(.:.\.Ii=:\?::iii'I:'i:{i;:[
Methylelhyl ketone (I)'
Pentachlorophenol
Tetrachloroethene
Toluene
1,1,1. Trichloroethane
Trlchloroeth8ne
VInyl chloride (f)
Xylen..
c
C
B2
Carcinogenic
HBSe
(mgIKg) (a)
2E~1
IE~1
2E.02
1 E.02
Exe...
Clncar
Rlak (b)
Relltlve Cancer Noncarclnogenlo HU8rd R.lltlv. HI
Contribution HBSaI Index Contribution
" (0) (mgJKg);cO (e) % (e)
3E+01 8.5E+00 13.38
0.09
-.'
1 E.05
.. J>
2E.04
7E.04
4E.04
1.41
4.39
2.12
4E+03
9E+01
9E+01
UE.oI
1.5E~1
.-
7E+01
IE+04
7E+03
2E+02
?,::i:::[:,:i:::i[ifii!+B.W:i@:::iii{: .:;:1i:ii;:i:li;~i1$t':i:i::i::;:'
9E+00
2E+05
5E+02
3E+03
IE+03
8.6E.02
2.3E.02
:..[;::i:t}i~1:::i::.:A::';:: .:.:::,i::i.'~~~';::}\{\ '.......' ":ji;ef:'(.:i:::[:
0.2
18
1700
22
.490
B2
82
B2
A
9.
TOTAL RISK
,
2E+02 1 E.()9
2E +00 7E;08
IE+oo 4E.04
. E-03
0.00
0.04
2.14
2E.02
100.00
8.!IE-G7
3.0E.02
5.1 E-G1
2.3E.02
2E+03
4.4E.02
0.45
0.23
0.10
0.04
0.00
0.05
0.81
0.04
0.07
100.00
NOTES: ~~:"'i:iii::.limIJIH~'M::j:\:::::::::::::::I::ij::':::,\:,'::::::::::j::'jj:,:;'::::::::g:':::}::::::;:;'[j:: Blank meant there.,. no available toxicity values.
(a) Carclnogenlo HBSeI- HeaJIh.b8aed etanderd for eon was estimated based on the potential contaminant migration to ground water and . target exC888 cancer risk 0' 1 E.o& (Table 3).
(b) Exceaa Cancer RIsk - 1 E-08 . (MC / carelnogen1o HBSeI).
(c) Relative ContributIon - (ChemJoaI.epeolflo AIsle/Total RIsk) .100.
(cI) Noncarclnogenlo HBSaI- HeaJlh.beaed ltIIndard'or eon was estimated based on the potential contamInant mIgration to ground water and a target hezerd Index 0' 1 (Table 4).
(0) Hazard Index - t It (MC / noncarclnogenlo HBSsI).
(I) Chemical was 'ound In ground water but was not deteGted In eons.
40
UE+OI
-------
TABLE 6.4
HISTORIC FREQUENCY OF THE DETECTION OF TARGET
CONSTITUENTS IN A-AQUIFER GROUNDWATER SAMPLES
1984 TO 1991
Target Historic Frequency of Detection of Target Constituents in Groundwater Samples.. . All
Constituent V-I V-2 V-3 V-5 V-6 V-7 V-8 V-9 . V'::'10 V-11, V-:12 .. ' ,
V-4
1,I,I-TCA 1/21 12/12 6/21 34/34 0/13 4/13 20/21 13/15 1/10' 1/11 0/4 0/4 92/179
1,I-DCA 15/21 11/12 16/21 34/34 0/13 0/13 21121 1/15 10/10 0/11 0/4 0/4 108/179
1,I-DCE 2121 5/12 3121 33/34 0/13 0/13 Ii::; 1 1/15 0/10 0/11 0/4 0/4 61/179
1,2-DCA 0/21 2/11 1121 3/32 0/13 0/13 0121 0/16 0/10 0/11 0/4 0/4 6/176
1,3-Dichlorobenzene 012 2/11 0119 0/10 0/3 0/3 0/3 012 0/1 0/2 010 % 2/56
Trans-l,2-DCE 2121 2/11 6121 0/30 0/13 0/13 0120 0/15 0/10 0111 0/4 014 10/169
4-Nitrophenol 1/19 0/3 0/18 0120 0/9 0/9 0/8 0/4 0/4 0/4 % % 1/97
Acetone 4/35 213 3/34 4/39 1/15 0/17 1/22 1/26 0/17 3/18 0/9 0/9 19/239
I Benzene 0/21 217 1/22 0131 0113 1113 0/22 0115 OliO 0111 0/4 0/4 4/173
Bromoform 0120 0/11 0121 1131 0/13 0/13 0120 0/15 0/10 0/11 0/4 0/4 1/173
Carbon Tetrachloride 0120 0/11 0121 0131 0/13 0/13 1120 0/15 0/10 0/11 0/4 0/4 1/173
Chlorobenzene 0/19 2/9 0/21 1131 0/13 0/13 0120 0115 0/10 0/11 0/4 0/4 3/170
Chloroetbane 1/20 5/11 0/21 25131 0/13 0/13 0120 0/15 0/10 0/11 0/4 0/4 31/173
Chloroform 0120 0/11 0/21 0/31 0/13 0113 1121 0/15 0110 0/11 0/4 0/4 1/173
Dibromochloro- 0/19 1/11 0121 2130 0/13 0/13 0120 0/15 0/10 0/11 0/4 0/4 3/171
methane
Ethanol 2122 1/3 1121 2121 0/9 019 OliO 0/18 018 1/9 O/S 01S 71135
Ethylbenzene 0/20 .
2/6 0121 0128 0/13 0/13 0120 O/IS 0/10 0/10 0/4 014 2/164
Isopropanol 1/22 1/3 0121 1121 019 019 0/10 0/13 0/8 1/9 O/S 0/5 41135
Methanol 3/22 0/3 3/21 2121 019 0/9 0110 0113 1/8 0/9 O/S 0/5 9/135
Methyl Ethyl Ketone 1/4 3n 0/4 0/6 0/3 0/3 0/3 0/1 0/1 % 010 % 7/32
Methylene Chloride 10/22 13/13 10/22 19/34 0/13 0/13 1121 0/15 0/10 3/11 0/4 0/4 S6/182
Pentachlorophenol 2120 0/3 1/19 0/20 019 0/8 0/8 0/4 0/4 0/4 010 0/0 3/99
Phenol 0/19 0/3 0/18 1120 0/9 0/8 0/8 0/4 0/4 0/4 0/0 % 1/97
T etrachloroethene 0120 2/11 0121 0/30 0/13 0/13 0120 0/15 0/10 0/11 0/4 0/4 2/172
Toluene 0120 4n 0/22 3129 0/13 0/13 0120 0/15 0/10 0/11 0/4 0/4 8/168
TPH as diesel 10/19 % 11119 10/17 0/5 0/5 0/5 OIS 0/5 0/6 010 010 31/86
TPH as thinners 4/15 012 1/15 3/14 on on on 0/3 0/3 0/4 010 010 8/84
Trichloroethene 0/21 4/11 0122 0130 0/13 0113 0120 0/15 0/10 0/11 0/4 0/4 4/174
Vinyl Chloride 0120 3/11 1120 8131 0113 0113 1/20 O/IS. 0/10 0/11 0/4 0/4 13/172
Xylene 0121 sn 2120 0/27 0/13 0113 0120 0/15 0/10 0/11, 014, 0/4 7(164,
. - Ratio between number of samples in which constituent was'detected _fa
level exceeding the analytical detection limit and the total number
samples analyzed for the constituent.
.. - Includes results of analyses from all well locations.
41
-------
TABLE 6.5
POTENTIAL PATHWAYS OF EXPOSURE TO CONTAMINANTS ORIGINATING AT THE JASCO SITE
UNDER POTENTIAL FUTURE LAND-USE CONDmONS
Exposure Potential Routes Potential Pathway Potential for
Medium of EJq)osure Receptors Complete Substance EJq>osures
Soil Dermal absorption, Construction Yes, if Moderate, .periodic
incidental ingestion. workers and surface is and short-term.
on-site residents disturbed.
Air
Inhalation of VOCS.
Nearby residents ..
Construction workers
on site residents.
Yes. IT
surface is
disturbed.
Very low, high
volatility and
dispersion.
Fugitive dust.
Construction workers
on-site residents.
Yes
H surface
disturbed.
Moderate, periodic and
short-term
Ground
Water
Ingestion, inhalation,
dermal absorption.
Local populations
Yes, if private High
well installed
in .area of plume.
42
-------
TABLE 6.6
POTENTIAL PATHWAYS OF EXPOSURE TO CONTAMINANTS ORIGINATING AT THE JASCO SITE
UNDER CURRENT LAND-USE CONDmONS
Exposure
Medium
Soil
Potential Routes
of E)(posure
Dermal absorption,
incidental ingestion
Potential
Rece,ptors
Workers, trespassers
Pathway
Complete
No
Contaminants are
contained within.
3-10 ft. depth
interval.
Potential for
Substance E)(posures
None
Air
Inhalation of VOCs
and/or fugitive dust
Workers, trespass.ers
Local population
downwind of site.
No
Contamin~nts are
contained within
3-10 feet depth
interval.
Very Low
Ground
Water
Ingestion, inhalation,
dermal aborption.
Local population.
of Mt. View
No, public water
supplemented with
water from wells
outside area of
influence. No
private wells are in
use.
None
43
-------
I~---
TABLE 6.7
SUMMARY OF FEDERAIJSI'ATE MCUAL, SELECTED CLEANUP STANDARDS FOR GROUND WATER
(SCSgw) AND REALm RISKS RELATED TO SCSgw
CHEMICAL EPA EPA CA Stale scs ror SCSgw. SCSgw-
(WeJgbtoGr-EYlcience) Carreat Proposed MCUAL Gr. Waler Relalecl lleIaleci
(a) MCL (mg/L) MCL (mWL) (mr!L) (SCSp) Caacer Hazard
(b) (b\ (b) . 11ll2lL) (c) RIsk (d) IDdcs le\
A. CarcIDocea-MCL
BeazeDc (A) 0.005 0.001 0.001 ~
1.1-Dichloroechane (C) 0.005 0.005 5&G6 6.5S03
1,I-Dichloroechene (C) 0.007 0.006 O.ClO6 9E-OS 1.8&02
1_.;JIiii::i:i.::i::'i'Ii: 0.005 0.0005 0.0005 3E-06
'-""'"",""..""""""'.'" ii:@][~.j:::m:t)i~:i: ;:;,Imi::iIil!l:iI::ii:::iI:i {!::i::~:i:i:i:i_it:iI:!*i[ I1.liil£i..iiiWiii
:::'::::::::==:tr::OOS::':::::::::::::
\:~~~tr.-: j~;; : ,",: . :.: }:~t)t~
PCDtac:lalorophenoi (82) 0.001 .. 0.03 AL 0.001 lE-06 9.1&04
rretnc:hlaroetlaC (82) 0.005 . 0.005 0.005 3£-06 1.4&02
e (82) 0.005 O.oos o.oos ~
MDyI c:bkxide (A) (f) 0.002 0.0005 0.0005 ~
A. SUBTOTAL (to\ 1~ 4~
a.No~MCL(b)
o-l,2-DidIIoroet.heae 0.07 . 0.006 0.006 1.6&02
Bahylbellzene. 0.7 . 0.68 0.68 4.2&01
Tolueae 1 . 0.1 AL 1 3.1EOI
1,1,I-TricbloroethaDe 0.2 0.2 0.2 l.3SOl
XyIeaa 10 . 1.75 1.75 9.2E01
a. SUBTOTAL OE+OO L8B+OO
C. NollClUdDogeb w/o MCL (h)
4 UB+OO
0d0r0ethaDe (f) ,- 30 UB+OO
Diclel or k.emsene mixture 3 1.28+00
MetIwaol 20 l.lB+CIO
Methyl et!IyI ketone (f) 0.6 UB+OO
Ie. SUBTOTAL OE+OO S.3B+CIO
'TJVE TOTAL I J.E.04 5.AE+OO
NOTES:
r~~j~~{q~~._~li8a"dij~@JiMHttWnr:
BIaDk -- DOcIata
. - To be effec:tfte in 7192
MCL - Muimum contamiJw1t IeYd
EP A - U.s. BrMtoameaIaJ PIUCeCtioa A&acY
SCS - Selected Ceaaup Standard (f'nm Table 5)
(a) SCSa (oecheaaic:ab with weight«-eWieaoe de8ipatioa _baed OQC8J'C:iDopicdlec:ta. 11aeoaa without wapt«-
evidence - bated 011 DOIIC8I'Cioogca dlcc:1a.
(b)!lefereace: BPA, 1991c
(c) FOl'Cbemic:aJs with M~ available, 8CIec:8ed cle8DuplUDdudafoeJl'OUDd --- (SCSp) is the federal cirstate Ma.. wltic:heYerislllCft 8triItpat.
For c:hemic:aIs without MC'U, the SCSp is the fiDaI HBSp (Table S). .
(d) SCSgw-ldatel:l -- c:ancer risk - 1SG6 . (sCSrr/HBSp), with HBSp baed oa can:iDogeaic dfecu (Table 3).
(e) SCSgw-ldatel:l huard index - 1. (SCSp/HBSp), with HBSgwbated OI1l1011C8t'Ci11ogdfecu (Table 4).
(C) Oacmical detected in croulld water but DOt reported in IOiL
(g) l,l-Dic:bIoroetheae, a class C can:inogca ~th equMai carciIIogenicity eWieace, _tributes aignif"lCant - cancer risk at ita SCSgw.
(II) Otemicals that pose a cumulati~ lignific:aut DOIICU'I:inogcD huard at SCSgw levels, but found at c::oncentratioas much IoM:r than the SCSgw.
.. - To be dlectne in 12J92
SEe - Secaadmy
CA -Sfate of Califanlia
AL - AdioI1Iew1
-------
7.0
APPLICABLE OR RELEVANT AND APPROPRIATE REQUIREKENTS (ARARS)
Pursuant to section 121(d) (1) of CERCLA, remedial actions must
attain a degree of clean-up which assures protection of human
health and the environment. Additionally, remedial actions must
meet standards, requirements, limitations, or criteria that are
"applicable or relevant and appropriate" (ARARs). Federal ARARs
for any site include the requirements of federal environmental
laws. .
state ARARs include promulgated requirements under state
environmental or facility-siting laws that are more stringent than
Federal ARARs and have been identified to EPA by the state in a
timely manner.
Applicable requirements are those clean-up standards, control
standards, and other substantive environmental protection.
requirements, criteria, or limitations promulgated under Federal or
state law that specifically address a hazardous substance,
pollutant, contaminant, remedial action, location or other
circumstance at a CERCLA site. .
Relevant and appropriate requirements are defined as those
cleanup standards and other substantive environmental protection
requirements, criteria, or limitations promulgated under Federal or
state law that, while not "applicable" to a hazardous substance,
pollutant, contaminant, remedial. action, location or other
circumstance at a CERCLA site, nevertheless address problems or
situations sUfficiently similar to those encountered at the CERCLA
site to indicate that their use is well-suited to the particular
site. If no ARAR addresses a particular situation, or if an ARAR
is insufficient to protect human health or the environment, then
non-promulgated standards, criteria, guidances, and advisories (To
Be Considered, or TBCs) must be used to provide a protective
remedy. .
Additionally, response actions which take place off-site must
comply with all laws applicable at the time the off-site activity
occurs, both administrative and substantive. .
Types of ARARs
There. are three types of ARARs. The first type includes
"contaminant specific" requirements. These ARARs set limits on
concentrations of specific hazardous substances, pollutants, and
contaminants in the environment. Examples of this type of ARAR are
ambient water quality criteria and drinking water standards.
The second type of ARAR includes "location-specific"
requirements that set restrictions on certain types of activities
based on site characteristics. These include restrictions on
activities in wetlands, floodplains, and historic sites.
45
-------
The third type of ARAR includes "action-specific"
requirements. These are technology-based restrictions which are
triggered by the type of action under consideration. Examples of
action-specific ARARs are Resource Conservation and Recovery Act
(RCRA) regulations for waste treatment, storage, and disposal.
, ARARs are identified on a site-specific basis from information
about specific chemicals at the site, specific features of the site
location, and actions that are being considered as remedies.
The following section will outline the Applicable or Relevant
and Appropriate Requirements (ARARs) that apply to this site.
A.
CONTAMINANT-SPECIFIC ARARs
The contaminant-specific ARARs for the site are Federal
Maximum Contaminant Levels (MCLs) and more stringent state of
California MCLs. Each is relevant and appropriate as a cleanup
standard for the site. A list of Federal and state MCLs which are
ARARS are presented in Table 4.4.
1. Federal Drinkina Water Standards
section 1412 of the Safe DrinJdna Water Act (SDWA). 42 U.8.C.
~300a-1. "National DririkinawaterRequlations": National Prima"
Drinkina Water Reaulations~40 CFR ParOt 141.' ' '
Relevant and appropriate drinking water regulations are MCLs
for specific contaminants. MCLs are enforceable standards at the
tap which apply to specified contaminants which EPA has determined
have an adverse effect on human health.
Accordingly, the appropriate remedial standard for groundwater
is the current federal or state MCL,whichever is more stringent.
Table 6.7 compares the current state and federal HCLs for the
chemicals of concern and identifies the cleanup standard.
2. State Drinkina Water Standards
california Safe Drinking Water Act. Health & safety Code. Div. 5.
Part 1. ChaDter 7. ~ 4010 et' sea..Califoriia 'Domestic' Water
Qualitv Monitorina Reaulations; CAC Title 22. 'Division 4~ CbaD'ter ',' ,
15. ~64401 et sea.
The California Safe Drinking Water Act sets forth requirements
governing public water systems, and provides for drinking water
quali ty standards. California has promulgated KCLs for primary VOCs
as shown in Table 4.4. EPA has determined relevant & appropriate
the California KCLs for primary VOCs as the groundwater cleanup
s~andard for the site where the California MCLs, for VOCs, were
more stringent than federal KCLs.
46
-------
B.
ACTION-SPECIFIC ARARs AND TBCs
The action-specific ARARS for the site address requirements
for the treatment, storage, or disposal of contaminated soil,
and for pumping and treating groundwater using liquid phase
carbon adsorption.
1.
Treatment bv Liauid Phase Carbon Adsorotion
Solid Waste DisDosa1 Act. as amended bv Resource conservation and
Recoverv Act. 42 D.S.C. ~~90~et ~~a. ..
Use of granular activated carbon (GAC) for remediation of VPCs
triggers requirements associated with regeneration or disposal of
the spent carbon. RCRA, as implemented pursuant to California's
approved RCRA program, found at 22 CCR 5566260.1-67450.5
(California Hazardous Waste Control Law), is relevant and
appropriate. Spent carbon is a characteristic waste, and is
regulated as a hazardous waste under RCRA and the California RCRA
program. Spent carbon must be disposed of at a permitted hazardous
waste disposal facility. .
Containers used for storage of hazardous waste on site for
more than 90 days must be:
Maintained in good condition (22 CCR 566264.171);
Compatible with other stored wastes (22 CCR 566264.172);
Closed during storage (22 CCR 566264.173);
Placed on a sloped, crack-free base with containment
system in place capable of handling 10 percent of the
free liquids stored (22 CCR 566264.175);
Placed 50 feet from the facility's property line if
ignitable or reactive (22 CCR 566264.176);
Separated by a dike or other barrier if incompatible
wastes are stored near each other (22 CCR 566264.178);
At closure, all hazardous wastes and residues from
contaminant system must be removed (22 CCR 566264.178)
Storage of wastes restricted from land disposal is prohibited
unless certain conditions are met (22 CCR 566268.50).
On site storage of contaminated carbon triggers substantive
requirements under state law (Hazardous Waste Control Law, 22 CCR
Division 4.5). Secondary containment is required for storage of
hazardous wastes over 90 days. As the spent carbon is a hazardous
waste, construction and monitoring requ~ements for storage
facilities also apply.
2.
RCRA and Hazardous Solid Waste Amendment (HSWA) standards
(42 U.S.C. 556901-6987) .
Remedial activities that involve the excavation or removal of
hazardous wastes, on-site management of these substances, or
removal to off-site facilities must be in compliance with standards
under RCRA and amendments to RCRA enacted through the HSWA
standards, as implemented by State regulations authorized under
47
-------
RCRA. Any soil found contaminated with VOCs must be disposed of in
accordance with the State RCRA program. .
The following RCRA requirements, as implemented by the State
regulationsr are relevant and appropriate to remedial actions for
the site. .
o
Hazardous Waste Management System:
et sea.)
Identification and Listing of Hazardous Waste (22 CCR 566261
et sea.).
General (22 CCR 566260.1
o
o
standards for Owners and Operators of Hazardous Waste
Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities (22 CCR 566264.1
et sea.) in particular:
Article 2
Article 3
Article 5
- General Facility Standard
- Preparedness and Prevention
- Manifest System, Record-Keeping, and
Reporting for Offsite Transport and
Disposal
6 - Groundwater Monitoring
7 - Closure and Postclosure
9 - Use and Management of Containers
12 - Waste piles
16 - Miscellaneous Units
Article
Article
Article
Article
Article
Land Disposal Restrictions (22 CCR 566268.1 et sea.)
HSWA and state regulations restrict the land disposal of
hazardous waste and specifiestreat~ent standards that must be met
before these wastes can be land disposed. .
o
3. California Hazardous Waste Contro1 Laws (Health' Safetv Co~e,
Div. 20, Chal'ter 6.5. Articles 2, 4..4.5, 5, 6. 6.5 and 7.7)
The California hazardous waste control laws establish
standards governing hazardous waste control; management and control
of hazardous waste facilities; transportation; laboratories; and
classification of hazardous and nonhazardous waste.
The California Hazardous Substances Act, Health & Safety Code
Div. 22, Chapter 13, Sections 28743 and 28745, provides definitions
of "hazardous substance" and "toxic". criteria for identification
of hazardous waste thresholds are found .in 22 CCRr Div. 4.5,
Chapter 11. Criteria include the Soluble Threshold Limit
Concentration (STLC) and the Total Threshold Limit Concentration
(TTLC). STLC and TTLC chemical-specific values reflect the
chemical characteristics of persistence and bioaccumulation.
Title 22 CCR, Division 4.5, Chapter 14 establishes standards
for owners and operators of hazardous waste treatment and storage
facilities.
These standards are relevant and appropriate to the site, and
thus are ARARs for the site.
48
-------
Underqround S~oraqe Tank Requiremen~s
state regulations governing underground storage tank
monitoring, repairs, releases, and closures, found at Health &
Safety Section 25280 et seq. and 23 CCR Sections 2670 - 2672 apply
to this site. Existing underground storage tanks at the site will
be removed and remediation of that area will be required. No new
tanks will be installed.
4.
s.
Clean Air Ac~. 42 U.S.C. ~7401 e~ sea.
The Clean Air Act regulates air emissions to protect human
health and the environment, and is the enabling statute for air
quality programs and standards. The substantive requirements of
programs provided under the Clean Air Act are implemented primarily
through Air Pollution Control Districts. The following Bay Area
Air Quality Management District rules regarding emissions of VOCs
are applicable to remedial actions that may result in air
emissions:
Reg. 8, Rule 5
Reg. 8, Rule 40
(Storage of Organic Liquids)
(Aeration of Contaminated Soil and Removal
of Underground storage Tanks)
(Air stripping and Groundwater Aeration)
Reg. 8, Rule 47
C.
LOCATION-SPECIFIC ARARs AND TBCs
A site characterization was conducted at the Jasco site to
determine whether special characterjstics exist at the site which
warrant location specif ic requirements. No special characteristics
were found, and therefore no location-specific requirements or "To
Be Considered's" apply to the site.
49
-------
OTHER LEGAL REOUIREMENTS
COMPLIANCE WITH OSHA
OccuDationa1 Safety and Health Act. 29 U.S.C. ~6S1 et sea.
Worker safety will be governed by the OSHA requirements that
are applicable to workers implementing the remedial actions at the
site at the time that activity occurs. Of particular concern will
be exposure to volatile organic compounds in the air, as well as
direct contact with contaminated materials and hazardous chemicals
used in treatment processes.
The Superfund Amendments and Reauthorization Act requires that
the Secretary of Labor promulgate standards for the health and
safety protection of employees engaged in hazardous waste
operations pursuant to Section 6 of the Occupational Safety and
Health Act of 1970.
I
Final regulations under this s~ction shall take effect one
year after they are promulgated. Until then, hazardous waste
operations are governed by the interim requlations published in
1986 that provided no less protection for workers employed by
contractors and emergency response workers than the protection
contained in the occupational Safety and Health Guidance Manual for
Hazardous Waste Site Activities (NIOSH, 1985) and existing
standards under the Occupational Safety and Health Act of 1970,
found in subpart C of 29 CFR S1926..
. The California occupational Health and Safety Act, Labor Code
section 6300 et. sea., is also applicable to workers implementing
the remedial actions at the site, particularly subchapter 5,
Section 2300 et sea. (electrical safety), subchapter 7, section
3200 et sea. (general industrial safety regulations), subchapter 4,
Section 1500 et sea. and 8 CCR, Chapter 4 (construction .safety
regulations.)
comD1iance with USDOT and california EPA Hazardous Material
TransDortation Rules (Cal. Vehicle Code'~32ooet seer.: '13 CCR ~1160
et sea.)
Off-site transportation of hazardoug materials will be
governed by the United States Department of Transportation (USDOT)
and California Department of Transportation (DOT) regulations
applicable to that activity at the time it occurs. These
requirements are incorporated by reference into California's RCRA
requlations and California Health & Safety Code 525168.1, 25168.3,
25169, 25169.1, and 25169.3. The requirements are applicable.
A permit would be needed to generate or transport hazardous
solids or liquids. The site is technically considered a
"generator" because it is the source of hazardous waste or
materials that may be transported off-site for disposal.
50
-------
Therefore, these requirements would be applicable to that activity
at the time it occurs. Generator requirements are found at 22 CCR
Division 4.5, Chapter 12. Transport requirements are found at 22
CCR Division 4.5, Chapter 13.
California EPA administers RCRA and USDOT regulations. Waste
transported out of the state must be handled by a licensed
hauler/transporter, who will need a California EPA permit for in-
state movements and Federal or state permits for out-of-state
transport to secure landfills or incineration depots. The
hauler/transporter must operate in compliance with state and
Federal regulations in effect at the time on driver training; waste
identification; container marking, labeling, and placarding; and
transport manifests. Packing and shipping must be performed in
accordance with 22 CCR S66262.30 - 66262.34 and 49 CFR Part 173,
Subparts A and B.
.~~:l
.'
~~.
51
-------
8.0
DESCRIPTION OP ALTERNATIVES
OHM Remediation Services corporation submitted a final
Feasibility study dated May 19, 1992 for the Jasco Chemical
company. The report contained the resul ts of the subsurface
investigation, a description of the groundwater and soil
contamination, an evaluation of interim actions, and remedial
alternatives. EPA determined that the technical information
contained within the Remedia1 Investigation/Feasibi1ity Study was
acceptab1e for developing a final cleanup plan.
EPA evaluated six groundwater remedial action alternatives and
five soil remedial alternatives for the JascoSuperfund site in
accordance with CERCLA Section 121, the National contingency Plan
("NCP"), and the Interim Guidance on Sut>erfund Selection of Remedv,
December 24, 1986 (Oswer Directive No. 9355~ 0-19) . " " ,
The Feasibility study initially screened 28 remedial action
technologies for groundwater and 21 remedial action technologies
for soil. These technologies were screened based on
implementability, effectiveness, and cost criteria. The remedial
technologies that survi ved the screening were assembled into a
group of alternatives as follows:
GROUNDWATER ALTERNATIVES
,-
Groundwater Remedial Alternative ~
Remedial Alternative 1 is a "no further action" alternative,
retained for baseline comparison purposes in accordance with the
NCP. Remedial technologies are not implemented at the Jasc~ site
under this al ternati ve. The existing groundwater recovery and
discharge operation would cease, as would any groundwater
monitoring. The total present worth cost of this alternative is
negligible.
Groundwater Remedial Alternative 2: Discharge to Publicly owned
Treatment Works (PO'IW)
Remedial Alternative 2 consists of the following:
Deed Restriction
Extraction, Equalization and Mixing
Off-site Discharge Under POTW Permit
Groundwater and Discharge Monitoring
This alternative would continue, on a larger scale, the
current interim cleanup action at the site. Groundwater would
continue to be pumped to the City of Mountain view's sewage
trea tment plant under a city permit or an alternate method of
discharging water that complies with applicable laws. The
52
-------
treatment plant is capable of safely removing the contamination.
Total Present Worth Cost = $72,000 based on a 10-year remediation
life and 10% discount rate. The annual discharge cost is estimated
at $7,000 per year.
Groundwater Remedial Alternative 3:
Ultraviolet Oxidation
Remedial Alternative 3 consists of the following:
Deed Restriction
Extraction
UV Oxidation
Polishing Treatment
Groundwater and Discharge Monitoring
Off-site Discharge Under POTW Permit
This alternative would involve extracting and treating the
groundwater and chemically changing the~ontaminan~s .into nontox~c
pr:oducts. The. treatment would expose the chemicals to ultraviolet.
light and oxidizing agents which cause the contaminants to form
less toxic products. This is a sophisticated process that requires
extra set up and maintenance time. One disadvantage, however, is
that the presence of diesel/total petroleum fuel hydrocarbons in
the groundwater could decrease this alternative's effectiveness.
:: Total Present Worth Cost = $370,000
Total capital costs are estimated at $186,000. The
operating costs associated with the UV system is $31,000.
annual
Groundwater Remedial Alternative 4:.- Carbon Adsorption
Remedial Alternative 4 consists of the following:
Deed Restriction
Installation of. additional wells
Extraction
Carbon Adsorption (liquid phase)
Groundwater and Discharge Monitoring
Off-Site Discharge Under POTW Permit
Groundwater would be extracted and passed through a liquid
phase carbon adsorption bed. The contaminants adhere to the
activated carbon, which would then be removed from the site and
disposed of at a licensed facility. The treated groundwater would
then be discharged, under a ci ty permit, to the Mountain View
sewage treatment plant or an alternate method of discharging water
that complies with applicable law. This system is easy to
implement, requires little maintenance, and provides a cost-
effective option for removing the contaminants. It would
permanently remove the contaminants from the site and provide
overall protection to human heal th and the environment. The
alternative would greatly reduce contamination in the groundwater
in the short term. Reduction of remaining contamination over the
long-term would continue at a slower pace. Cleanup objectives
would require about 10 years to achieve.
53
-------
Total Present Worth Cost = $236,000
Total capital cost associated with using two carbon units annually
is $38,400. The annual operating costs for the unit is estimated
at $32,800.
Groundwater Remedial Alternative 5: Air stripping
Remedial Alternative 5 consists of the following:
Deed Restriction
Extraction
Air stripping
Groundwater and Discharge Monitoring
Off-site Discharge Under POTW Permit
This alternative would take advantage of the fact that organic
contaminants present in the groundwater are volatile, or will
evaporate easily into the air. The groundwater would be extracted
and passed through an air stripper that would mix clean air with
the contamina.ted groundwater in a tall cylinder. During mixing, the
contaminants would evaporate. The air containing the contaminated
vapor is then treated with activated carbon to which the
contaminants adhere. The carbon filters would then be taken off-
site and disposed of at a licensed facility. This process is
complicated due to the low level of groundwater flow at JASCO and
the requirement that a holding tank be constructed so an adequate
amount of water can be stored and then sent through the system. An
operator must be available to turn the system on and off. Also,
the low flow rate may not provide a strong driving force for the
contaminants to adhere to the carbon. These factors may act to
increase the cost of the alternative.
Total Present Worth Cost = $~~8,OOO
Total capital cost associated with the installation of the air
.stripper is $46,000. The annual operating costs associated with
operating the air stripper are estimated at $~2,OOO.
Groundwater Remedial Alternative 6:
by Carbon Adsorption
Remedial Alternative 6.consists of the following:
Deed Restriction .
Extraction
Ex-Situ Biological Treatment
Carbon Adsorption (liquld phase)
Groundwater and Discharge Monitoring
Off-site Discharge Under POTW Permit
Biological Treatment Followed
This al ternati ve invol ves extracting the groundwater and
biologically treating it to destroy the majority of contaminants.
Following biological treatment, the groundwater passes through a
carbon adsorption system to remove any remaining contaminants.
Although this alternative would immediately destroy many of the
contaminants present at higher concentrations, biological treatment
systems may undergo disruptions due to temperature, contaminant
concentration, and other system shocks.
54
-------
Total Present Worth Cost = $410,000
Total estimated capital cost is $89,400. The annual operating
costs associated with the biological treatment system is $12,000 to
$24,400.
SOIL ALTERNATIVES
soil Remedial Alternative 1:
No Action
As with groundwater, the No Action option is considered as a
baseline for comparison of the other alternatives.. No treatment
would be implemented and the soil would simply be left in place.
Although some degradation would occur over time, most contami~ants
would migrate to the groundwater. The n: action alternative would
not be effective in the short or long t< m.
Soil Remedial Alternative 2:
Off-site Treatment
Remedial Alternative 2 consists of the following:
Deed Restriction
Soil Excavation.
Off-site RCRA Treatment and/or Disposal
This alternative involves excavating the contaminated soil and
transporting it off-site for treatment at a facility holding a
permit to treat hazardous waste in compliance with state and
federal regulations, which could include incineration. As there
are no incinerators in the state of California, the soil would
likely have to be transported out ox the state. This would be an
expensi ve al ternati ve. Precautions would be necessary during
excavation to reduce the amount of dust released to the
environment. Off-site treatment is estimated at $1,683,000, which
is based on $50 per hour per truck estimate (62 truckloads taking
30 hours) to transport contaminated soil. The cost for treatment
and/or disposal is $0.45 per pound of soil once the soil is
delivered to the treatment facility.
Soil Remedial Alternative 3:
Enhanced Biological Treatment
Remedial Alternative 3 consists of
Deed Restriction
Soil Excavation
Enhanced Biological Treatment
On-Site Replacement
Contaminated soil would be excavated and placed in an enclosed
container. The soil would be mixed with nutrients to encourage
digestion of contaminants by microorganisms. The container would
have an air distribution system along the bottom. Air drawn
through this system would provide oxygen to the microorganisms and
also extract the volatile organic compounds. The air stream would
then pass through an activated carbon adsorption system. The
carbon would be taken off-site and disposed of at a facility with
a permit to accept hazardous waste. This alternative would provide
the following:
within adtivated bed
55
-------
a cost-effective option for removing the contaminants and could be
completed in less than 2 years. Precautions would be taken during
excavation to reduce the amount of dust released to the
environment. The cost for this treatment is estimated to be $~50
to $225 per cubic yard of soil. Excavation costs are estimated at
$200,000 and treatment costs are estimated from $165,000 to
$248,000. .
Soil Remedial Alternative 4:
X-1.9 Biological Treatment
Remedial Alternative 4 consists of the following:
Deed Restriction
soil Excavation
X-19 Treatment
On-site Replacement
This alternative would include excavation and treatment of
contaminated soil using the X-19 process (the commercial name of a
biological treatment). The X-19 additive (microorganisms and
nutrients) would be mixed into the soil, which would then be placed
on a liner or in a treatment container. Developers of this process.
report that the microorganisms will consume the organic compounds
to nondetectable levels wi thin several months. Whether the
treatment will destroy chlorinated hydrocarbon contaminants is not
known. This treatment is a new technology that would reqUire
further study to establish its effectiveness. If proven effective,
it could take less than 1 year to implement. The estimated cost of
this alternative including treatability study is $278,000 to
$318,500. .
l ~~
,rtJ,;..'i
Soil Remedial Alternative 5:
Excalibur Process
\
Remedial Alternative 5 consists of the following:
Deed Restriction
Soil Excavation
50il Washing (Excalibur Process)
On-Site Repla~~~ent .
This alternative involves a new technology. Contaminants
would be extracted from soils using pure water and ultrasound.
Ultraviolet light, ozone, and ultrasound would then be applied to
the soils to destroy organic and inorganic contamination. The
effectiveness of this process has not yet been established.
Therefore, additional testing would be required. If proven to be
effective, it is assumed that treatment would be completed within
1 year or less. The estimated cost of this alternative would be
$200,000 for excavation, $50,000 for a treatability study, and
$88,000 to $220,000 for treatment. The total cost associated with
this alternative would be $338,000 to $470,000.
56
-------
9.0
COKPARAT:IVE. AHALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES
This section provides an explanation of the nine criteria
used to select the remedy, and an analysis of the remedial action
alternatives in light of those criteria, highlighting the ad-
vantages and disadvantages of each of the alternatives.
criteria
The alternatives were evaluated using nine component
criteria. These criteria, which are listed below, are derived
from requirements contained in the National Contingency Plan
(NCP) and CERCLA Sections 121(b) and 121(c).
The alternatives were evaluated in detail with respect to
the nine criteria in the FS report. A detailed analysis of the
alternatives was completed in the FS.
1.
Overall protection of human health and the environment.
This criterio~ addresses whether a remedy provides ade-
quate protection of human health and the environment.
2.
Compliance with applicable or relevant and
appropriate requirements (ARARs). This criterion
addresses whether a remedy will meet all of the
ARARs or other Federal ana State environmental
laws.
3.
Long-term effectiveness and permanence. This
criterion refers to expected residual risk and
residual chemical concentrations after cleanup
standards have been met and the ability of a
remedy to maintain reliable protection of human
health and the environment over time.
4.
Reduction of toxicity, mobility or volume. This
criterion refers to the anticipated performance of
the treatment technologies a remedy may employ.
Short-term effectiveness. This c»iterion
addresses the period of time needed to achieve
cleanup and any adverse impacts on human health
and the environment that may be posed during the
construction and implementation period, until
cleanup standards are achieved.
5.
6.
Implementability. This criterion refers to the
technical. and administrative feasibility of a
remedy.
57
-------
7.
Cost. This criterion includes estimated capital and
operation and maintenance, usually presented in a 30
year present worth format.
Support Agency Acceptance. This criterion
addresses California's acceptance of the selected
remedy.
8.
9.
Community Acceptance. This criterion summarizes
the pUblic's response to the alternatives.
9.1
GROUNDWA'1'ER
Threshold criteria
Overall Drotection of human health and the environment
Alternatives 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 would be protective of human
health and the environment because each involves the treatment of
contaminanted groundwater. Alternative 2 involves off-site
treatment of contaminated groundwater by the POTW. On-site
treatment of contaminated groundwater occurs with Alternatives 3,
4, 5, and 6. 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 re-
auirements
"
Cleanup standards for this site are determined to be the
California Maximum Contaminant Levels and federal Maximum
'contaminant Levels. Al ternati ve 1. would not comply with ARARs as
the groundwater contains contaminant concentrations that exceed
cleanup standards, and the potential for migration of
contaminants into a potable drinking water source would remain.
Alternative 2, discharge to the POTW, requires that extracted
groundwater meet City of Mountain View permit levels. Permit
levels have been exceeded at least four times since 1987. Al-
ternatives 3, 4, 5, and 6 would meet this ARAR, and comply with
existing discharge permit ievels because each require an onsite
pretreatment step prior to discharge. Spent carbon canisters
will be disposed of in a manner that complies with federal and
state requirements, including RCRA. .
primary Balancing criteria
Lena-term effectiveness and Dermanence
Alternative 1 would be ineffective at long-term reduction of
risks posed by the contaminant plume. Alternatives 2, 3, 4, 5,
and 6 would mitigate any potential future risks by preventing the
migration of VOCs in groundwater, and restoring the groundwater
quality of the A zone. Alternative 2 would require close
58
-------
monitoring to prevent the exceedance of permit levels. Over the
past five years the monitoring process would detect permit
exceedance only after they have occurred for at least a month.
Long-term monitoring, operation and maintenance would be
required. The long-term effectiveness and permanence is
anticipated to be achieved in the shortest period by implementing
Remedial Alternative 4.
Reduction of toxicitv. mobilitv. or volume throuah treatment
Alternatives 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 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.
Alternative 3 would require extra set up and maintenance
time. The presence of total petroleum hydrocarbons (diesel,.
paint thinner mixtures) could decrease this alternatives.
effectiveness. Alternative 4 would be permanently Temove the
contaminants from the site and reduce contamination in the
groundwater.
To increase the rate of VOC removal additional extraction
wells shall be installed. Installing additional wells will
steepen the hydraulic gradient, increase groundwater velocity,
shorten the groundwater flow path to the extraction point, and
thereby increase the rate and efficiency of VOC extraction.
Short-term effectiveness
.'
Implementation of alternatives 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 would be
protective of on-site workers and the community. Risks
associated with groundwater monitoring, recovery, treatment and
discharge are mitigated by the health and safety plan for the
site, and by the fact that no exposures to contaminants are an-
ticipated.
Alternative 1 will not be effective in containing the
contaminant plume.
Implementabilitv
Alternatives 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6 would be easy to construct
and operate. Alternative 3, UV Oxidation, would probably be the
most difficult to operate due to difficulties associated with
obtaining optimal system performanc~.
Alternative 1, "no action", can be readily implemented at
the site as it involves discontinuing the current remedial
actions.
59
-------
Cost
The cost to implement Alternative 1 would be minimal in
comparison to the other remedial alternatives for the site.
existing wells would need to be plugged and abandoned.
The capital cost to implement the extraction system for
Alternative 2 would be $30,000. Assuming an extraction system
operating at 6 qpm for 365 days a year, the annual cost for
discharge would be $5,500. In addition, the monthly analysis of
groundwater would cost $1,500 annually. The system would also
have to be relocated once the building is razed and industrial
operations cease. The present worth of this alternative is
estimated to be $72,000.
The
The capital cost to implement Alternative 3 would be
$186,000, which includes cost of UV oxidation equipment,
equalization tank, treatability study, mobilization, and
groundwater extraction system. The annual operating costs
associated with this alternative is $31,000. The process
chemicals and utilities are based on a vendor quote of $1.20 per
1000 gallons of water. The total present worth cost for
Alternative 3 is estimated to be $370,000.
The capital cost to implement Alternative 4 consists of
installation of the groundwater extraction system ($30,0.00), and
cost of two 350 gallon carbon units ($8,400). The annual.
operating costs are estimated to be $32,800. Assuming a 10-year
remediation life and a 10 percent discount rate, the present
worth of the project would be $236,000. This cost is based on
operating two carbon units in series. The spent carbon is
removed from the site and regenerat~d by the manufacturer.
The capital cost to implement Alternative 5 consists of
installation of the air stripping tower with automatic control
($10,000), an equalization tank ($6,000), and the extraction
system ($30,000). The total capitol cost is estimated to be
$46,000. The annual operating costs associated with this remedy
is $12,000. Assuming a 10-year remediation life and a 10 percent
discount rate, the present worth of the project would be
$118,000. The present worth of this alternative would increase
$200,000 if the air effluent were treated by carbon adsorption
and $180,000 if the air effluent were treated using a catalytic
oxidizer.
The capital cost to implement Alternative 6 consists of
installation of a biological reactor ($51,060), two liquid phase
carbon units ($8,400),. and the groundwater extraction system
($30,000). The total capital costs would be $89,000, and the
annual operating costs would range from $12,000 to $24,400. The
uncertainty associated with carbon unit replacement and carbon
regeneration causes the range. Assuming a 10-year remediation
life and a 10 percent discount rate, the present worth of the
project would be $162,000 to $236,000.
Alternative 4 is the most cost effective remedy in that it
would require the least set up and maintenance time and would.
still provide permanent destruction of site contaminants.
60
-------
"'"
" ," . . ''. ~'~~.
9.2
SOIL
Threshold Criteria
Overall Drotection of human health and the environment
Alternatives 2, 3, 4, and 5 would be protective of human
health and the environment because each involves the treatment of
contaminanted soil. Alternative 2 involves off-site treatment of
contaminated soils by a RCRA permitted facility with treatment
being incineration. On-site treatment of contaminated soil
occurs with Alternatives 3, 4, and 5. Alternative 1, the "no
action" alternative is not protective of human health and the en-
vironment, because it is expected that contaminants would
continue to migrate from soil to the groundwater and further
degrade groundwater quality.
soil cleanup standards for this site were determined based
upon contaminant migration into groundwater. The groundwater. .
cleanup standards are determined to be the California Maximum
contaminant Levels and federal Maximum Contaminant Levels. Soil
cleanup standards were then calculated to reduce the
contamination to a level that no longer threatens to contaminate
groundwater at levels above MCLls. Alternative 2 would comply
with groundwater ARARs because contaminants would be removed from
the site and destroyed by off-site treatment, thereby protecting
the groundwater from contamination above MCLls. Treatability
study tests have shown that Alternative 3 would most likely
comply with groundwater ARARs. Organic hydrocarbons have been
shown to be biodegradable and the chlorinated hydrocarbons are
less biodegradable, but are very volatile. These volatile
compounds would be adsorbed in the ~arbon beds. Treatability
study tests would have to be conducted to determine whether or
not the bioremediation process using the X-19 product would be
successful in Alternative 4. The vendor claimed to have achieved
non-detectable levels, but does not have proper treatability
study tests to document these levels. Alternative 5 utilizes the
concept of ultrapure water in combination with UV ozonation and
ultrasound to destroy organic compound mixtures. A treatability
study would need to be conducted to determine its effectiveness.
Primary Balancinq criteria
Lona-term effectiveness and Dermanence
Alternative 2 would ensure that no residual risk would
remain at the site. The off-site incineration process would
provide total destruction of all chemicals of concern.
Alternative 3 would permanently remove or biodegrade all
chemicals of concern. Alternative 4 would permanently degrade
all biodegradable chemicals, but the levels of achievable
biodegradation for chlorinated compounds is uncertain.
Alternative 5 would permanently destroy organic compounds during
the on-site treatment .operation. However, the treatability study
test would have to determine whether all the chemicals of concern
could be destroyed by this process. .
61
-------
Reduction of toxicity. mobility. or volume throuah treatment
Alternative 1 would not result in a reduction of toxicity,
mobility or volume since the volume of material containing
contaminants would increase due to diffusion and leaching.
Alternatives 2, and 3 would reduce toxicity, mobility, and volume
of chemicals present on site. Alternatives 4 and 5 would
probably reduce the toxicity, mobility, and volume of
contaminants but the extent of this reduction cannot be
determined without completion of a detailed treatability study.
Short-term effectiveness
Implementation of alternatives 2, 3, 4, and 5 would be
protective of on-site workers and the community. Risks
. associated with mobilization and treatment can be mitigated by
the health and safety plan for the site. Dust suppression
techniques would be employed to prevent airborne migration of
contaminants. The estimated completion time for implementation
of the remedies are as fol~ows: Alternative 2 can be completed
within six months, Alternative 3 within 2 years, Alternative 4
.within one year, and Alternative 5 within one year.
ImDlementability
Alternatives 2, 3, and 4, would be easy to construct and
operate. Alternative 5, Excalibur process would probably be the
most difficult to operate since a fullscale system has not yet
been built. A mobile treatment skid is available to treat up to
five cubic feet of solids per hour..
Cost
The estimated cost to excavate soil from the drainage swale
area is $200,000, which is expensive because of the close
proximity of the railroad tracks. Since slumping of the soil
could cause damage to the tracks soil will be removed utilizing
36" large diameter augers. The augers would be used to "drill
out" the soil and boreholes would be backfilled with concrete to
prevent soil slumpage.
There would be no cost for the implementation of Alternative
1. Each of the remaining alternatives include the estimated cost
for soil excavation. Alternative 2 involve& off-site disposal
and treatment at a cost of $1,683,000. Of the alternatives
involving on-site treatment, Alternative 4, X-19 treatment would
cost the least to implement ($278,500 to $318,500). The
estimated cost for Alternative 3, Enhanced Bio-treatment would
range between $365,000 and $448,000. The cost for Alternative 5,
Excalibur Treatment ranges between $338,000 and $470,000.
Alternative 2 would provide the most assurance that site
contaminants could be permanently removed by the technology, but
this alternative is also the most expensive. Alternatives 4 and
5 would require treatability studies to determine whether or not
62
-------
~i. ," ,; '" ,
soil cleanup standards would be met. A combination of
Alternative 3 and 2 provides the most balance between meeting
cleanup standards and being the most cost effective. Soils
containing residual concentrations greater than the soil cleanup
standards after biological treatment has been completed would be
disposed of at an appropriate facility.
9.3 ACCEPTANCE CRITERIA
SUPPORT AGENCY ACCEPTANCE
The Feasibility Study and the Proposed Plan Fact Sheet were
reviewed by California Regional Water Quality Control Board
(RWQCB). In a letter dated July 10, 1992, the RWQCB supported
EPA's proposed cleanup plan and cleanup standards for
groundwater.
COMMUNITY ACCEPTANCE
The Proposed Plan was presented to the community of Mountain
view in a fact sheet and at a public meeting. No technical
comments were submitted regarding the alternatives. Comments
received are addressed in the Responsiveness Summary.
THE SELECTED REMEDY
Remedy Selection Rationale and statutory Determinations
The selected remedy is protective of human health and the
environment. Groundwater and soil contamination will be treated
so that the remaining potential future risks fall within the 10-4
to 10-6 carcinogenic risk range for acceptable cleanup standards.
The remedy will comply with ARARs by achieving cleanup to at
least Federal and state MCLs.
The selected remedy will be effective in the short-term
because further plume migration will be controlled by groundwater
extraction and treatment along with treatment of contaminated
soils. The selected remedy will be effective in the long-term by
virtue of the fact that ARARs will be achieved. Groundwater ex-
traction and treatment and soil treatment is a permanent solution
and significantly reduces contaminant toxicity, mObility and
volume at the Jasco site. The selected remedy is implementable.
Based on an evaluation of the alternatives, the selected
groundwater remedy for the Jasco Superfund site is Alternative
No.4. Jasco has estimated that it will take approximately 10
years to achieve groundwater cleanup standards at a cost of
$236,000. The selected remedy for soil contamination is a
combination of Alternatives 2 and 3. Site soils shall be cleaned
using the Enhanced Biological Treatment alternative. Under this
treatment process, site soils located in the drainage swale area
shall be excavated and placed in an enclosed treatment vessel.
Soils located beneath the production facility and from the
underground storage tank area shall also be excavated and placed
in an enclosed treatment vessel after the building has been razed
63
-------
and tanks removed. The soil shall be mixed with nutrients to
encourage digestion of contaminants by microorganisms. The
container shall have an air distribution system along the bottom
which would provide oxygen to microorganisms and also extract the
volatile organic compounds. The air stream shall then pass
through an activated carbon"adsorption system. The carbon shall
be taken off-site and disposed of at a facility with a permit to
treat hazardous waste. Jasco has estimated that it will take
less than two years to implement the soil treatment process at an
estimated cost range of $365,000 to $448,000. If site cleanup
standards are not .achieved by this method, treated site soils not
meeting cleanup standards shall be sent to the appropriate off-
site RCRA treatment and/or disposal facility.
The selected remedy consists of the following actions:
a.
On-site construction of a liquid phase carbon
adsorption groundwater treatment unit.
Groundwater will be extracted and passed through a
liquid phase carbon adsorption bed. The
contaminants would adhere to the activated carbon,
which would then be removed from the site and
disposed of at a licensed facility. The treated
groundwater will continue to be discharged to the
sanitary sewer system under existing Permit Nos.
491010 and 491520, or alternate method ox
discharging water that complies with applicable
law.
b.
Continued groundwater extraction (pump and treat)
until cleanup standards are achieved in all
present and future wells ~t the Jasco facility.
Table 4.1 depicts all groundwater cleanup
standards that shall be achieved.
c.
Maintenance of hydraulic control (pumping of
water to control the flow of the plume) to
prohibit the further vertical and horizontal
migration of the groundwater plume. This
requirement shall remain in effect until
cleanup standards are achieved.
d.
Continued quarte~ly groundwater monitoring at
all monitoring and extraction wells on the
Jasco site during the cleanup period.
Groundwater samples shall continue to be
collected to verify that cleanup is
proceeding and that there is no migration of
contaminants above cleanup standard levels,
beyond current boundaries or into the deeper
B zone. The frequency of monitoring shall be
decreased from quarterly to triannually two
years after all site soils have been
remediated as shown by soil confirmation
sampling. The frequency of monitoring shall
be decreased to biannually once groundwater
cleanup standards have been achieved in all
site wells and stabilized for one year. .
64
-------
sampling and reporting requirements for the
Jasco site are contained in the Sampling and
Analysis Plan for the site which is part of
the Administrative Record for the site.
e.
Installation of additional extraction
(pumping) wells, in a quantity and at
locations to be determined by EPA, to improve
the performance of the groundwater extraction
and treatment system.
Treatment of all site soils containing
chemical concentrations greater than the
cleanup standards shown on Table 4.1 with the
enhanced biotreatment method. Under this
method contaminated soil shall be excavated
and placed in an enclosed container. The
soil shall be mixed with nutrients to
encourage digestion of contaminants by
microorganisms. The container shall have an
air distribution system along the bottom.
Air drawn through this system will provide
oxygen to the microorganisms and also extract
the volatile organic compounds. The air
stream shall then pass through an activiated
carbon adsorption system. The carbon will be
taken off-site and disposed of at a facility
with a permit to accept hazardous waste.
f.
g.
sampling of site soils beneath the production
facility, the drum storage area, and the
underground storage tank area to ensure that
the concentration of contaminants in these
areas do not exceed soil cleanup standards.
This sampling shall commence within six
months after completion of treatment of soils
located in the drainage swale area. If .
contamination exceeds the cleanup standards,
the soil shall be treated as set forth in
subparagraph (f) above, and if necessary,
subparagraph (h) below.
Off-site disposal of site soils containing
residual concentrations greater than the soil
cleanup standards after biological treatment
has been completed.
h.
.
i.
Restrictive easement (deed restriction). Jasco
shall be required to file a restrictive easement
in the Official Records of the County of Santa
Clara, which prohibits use of on-site shallow
groundwater for drinking water purposes and
controlling other subsurface activities. The
restrictive easement shall remain in place until
soil and groundwater cleanup standards are
achieved.
65
-------
10.0
STA'1'tJ'l'ORY DBTERK:INAT:IONS
The selected remedy. is protective of human heal th and the
environment, complies 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 remedies that employ treatment to reduce
toxicity, mobility, or volume as a principal element.
Because the remedy will result in hazardous substances
remaining on-site above health-based levels, a five-year review,
pursuant to CERCLA Section 121, 42 U.S.C. Section 9621, will be
conducted at least once every five years after initiation of the
remedial action to ensure that the remedy continues to provide
adequate protection of human health and the environment.
,"
11.0 DOC~A'1':ION OF S:IGN:IF:ICAN'1' CHANGES
There were no significant changes to the remedy proposed in
the proposed plan fact sheet.
.
66
------- |