Groundwater Contamination Cleanups
At South Bay Superfund Sites
Progress Report
A(rtt989
-------
X> U. S. Environmental Protection Agency - Region IX
215 Fremont Street
, _, San Francisco, California 94105
V £
The Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) prepared this progress report to help you learn more
about what is being done about the soil and groundwater pollution in the South Bay. The report focuses
primarily on groundwater contamination problems that come under the federal Superfund program.
The South Bay area refers to the southern portion of San Mateo County and the northern portion of
Santa Clara County, as roughly shown in the boxed area of Figure 1. The report describes the
following:
the nature of the contamination and its effects on the South Bay area;
the progress made in cleaning up the sites;
the participation of industries in cleaning up the contamination; and
the involvement of the California Regional Water Quality Control Board (the Regional
Board), the California Department of Health Services (DHS), EPA, and other state and
local regulatory agencies.
In addition to groundwater contamination, other potential environmental and human health threats are
present in the South Bay area. While this progress report focuses on federal Superfund sites that
primarily affect groundwater, it should be noted that other sources contribute to contamination in
the South Bay. The South Bay Asbestos site, located in Alviso, is one of the federal Superfund sites
in the South Bay. While the South Bay Asbestos site does not threaten groundwater resources, it may
pose other potential health hazards. This site is not discussed in this progress report; however, if you
would like more information about this site, check the appropriate box on the sign-up form on
page 19.
References to many organizations are included in this progress report; you can find a consolidated
listing of contact people and their phone numbers in the back. Also on page 19 is a sign-up form that
you can return to request to be placed on mailing lists to receive information about any of the sites
discussed in this report.
For additional copies of this progress report, contact the EPA Office of Community Relations at the
toll-free message line, 1-800-231-3075.
Printed on Recycled Paper
-------
Ground water Contamination Cleanups At
South Bay Superfund Sites:
A Progress Report
Inside:
Your Drinking Water page 4
Progress To Date page 10
Glossary of Acronyms page 17
How You Can Become Involved page 18
For More Information page 21
"Silicon Valley" is well known around the country as a center
for innovative high-technology industry. However, the area is
also known for its widespread groundwater contamination,
which results from leaking underground storage tanks and
spills at these high-tech industries. Local, state, and federal
government, environmental groups, and industry in the South
Bay have set national precedents by aggressively responding
to this contamination threat.
A major concern in the South Bay is that drinking water drawn
from groundwater sources may become contaminated by the
chemicals used by industry. The South Bay area refers to the
southern portion of San Mateo County and the northern portion
of Santa Clara County, as roughly shown in the boxed area
of Figure 1. Groundwater currently provides about half of the
drinking water consumed by over 1.5 million South Bay resi-
dents and is a valuable resource.
Most groundwater contamination discovered has not affected
drinking water supplies. Much of the drinking water is drawn
from deep groundwater reserves, called aquifers. Groundwa-
ter contamination, in most cases, has been limited to the shal-
lower aquifers. Nonetheless, the potential for contamination
to move from shallow to deep aquifers exists. In fact, in some
areas, the deep aquifers have been contaminated. While
drinking water currently supplied is safe, existing contamina-
tion must be cleaned up to minimize risks to public health and
to preserve the groundwater as a beneficial resource for the
future.
FIGURE 1: SAN FRANCISCO BAY REGION
AND SOUTH BAY AREA
----« 1
-------
What is Contamination?
Contamination is the presence of chemicals, either in the air,
water, or soil, that may harm people or the environment. Often
these chemicals are present as a result of human activities. The
type and amount of contamination vary from one area to
another, but the most common industrial contaminants in the
South Bay are volatile organic compounds (VOCs). VOCs are
used as solvents and metal degreasers by high-tech
industries. Table 1 lists VOCs that are commonly found at the
South Bay sites. Heavy metals, polychlorinated biphenyls
(PCBs), and pesticides are also present at a few sites. Other
possible contaminants in the groundwater include herbicides,
nitrates, and other fertilizers from agricultural use; bacteria
and inorganic substances from septic systems; and fuels from
leaking fuel tanks and pipelines.
TABLE 1: COMMONLY FOUND
VOLATILE ORGANIC COMPOUNDS
Common
Name
BTX*
DCA
DCE
Freon
PCE
TCA
TCE
Other Names
benzene, toluene, xylene
dichloroethane
dichloroethene, dichloroethylene
Freon 113, CFC-113
tetrachloroethene, tetrachloroeth-
ylene, perchloroethene, perchlo-
roethylene, Perc
trichloroethane
trichloroethene, trichloroethylene
'BTX refers to benzene, toluene, and xylene collectively. These
chemicals may be found and referred to individually.
What are the Results of the
Los Paseos Epldemlologlcal Study?
Epidemiological studies identify cases of public health
problems and attempt to trace their cause. A 1985
epidemiological study conducted by the California De-
partment of Health Services (DHS) revealed an elevated
rate of birth defects and miscarriages in the Los Paseos
neighborhood in San Jose from December 1981 through
August 1982. Los Paseos is located adjacent to the
Fairchild facility in south San Jose where a 60,000-
gallon TCA leak, discovered in December 1981, con-
taminated a public well. Because the health effects
could not be linked to the Fairchild leak with any degree
of certainty, follow-up studies were undertaken to de-
termine if the health effects could be directly related to
drinking contaminated groundwater.
The conclusions of these studies, released in May 1988,
indicated that the contaminated drinking water was
most likely not the cause of the health effects. By
modeling the distribution system for the water drawn
from the contaminated well, researchers determined
that the water was distributed to many different areas,
not just the Los Paseos area. In these additional neigh-
borhoods, the researchers found no corresponding in-
crease in health effects. In fact, a neighborhood that
received more of the contaminated water than Los
Paseos did not show evidence of a higher rate of birth
defects or miscarriages. The cause of the increased
number of birth defects in Los Paseos remains un-
known.
stiuh. contact the
How Did We Find Contamination?
Groundwater contamination first came to light in the South
Bay in late 1979 when IBM found contaminated soil near
underground tanks in San Jose. Subsequently, in 1981,
Fairchild Camera and Instrument Company, located in South
San Jose, determined that 60,000 gallons of solvents mixed
with water had leaked from an underground waste storage
tank. Groundwater drawn from a nearby public water supply
well was contaminated with trichloroethane (TCA), a solvent
commonly used by high-tech industries. TCA was found at
concentrations above safe drinking water levels, and the well
was immediately removed from service.
This discovery prompted the San Francisco Bay Regional
Water Quality Control Board (Regional Board), the state
agency with primary responsibility for regulating discharges
into water resources, to actively investigate other potential
sources of contamination from industrial chemicals. The
Regional Board initiated a Leak Detection Program, sending
-------
questionnaires to facilities storing hazardous materials in
underground storage tanks. Over 150 sites have been identi-
fied where soil and/or groundwater have been contaminated.
Currently, the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), the
department responsible for conducting the federal Superfund
program, is active at 28 of these sites. Figure 2 shows the
location of these 28 federal Superfund sites. State and local
agencies are investigating other sites, including approxi-
mately 900 locations where fuel leaks have been found.
The discovery of contamination in the South Bay from under-
ground storage tanks and high-tech industries has received na-
tional attention, alerting regulatory agencies to a problem that
exists throughout the United States. A Hazardous Materials
Storage Ordinance developed by local government, industry,
and public interest groups in response to the contamination has
served as a model for similar laws nationwide. These ordi-
nances establish preventative design standards and monitor-
ing procedures that will minimize future contamination.
HEWLETT PACKARD
(640 and 1501)
JASCO -
SPECTRA PHYSICS
WESTINGHOUSE
INTEL MAGNETICS
INTERSIL/SIEMENS
INTEL SANTA CLARA 3
RHONE-POULENC /ZOECON
CTS PRINTEX
TELEDYNE SEMICONDUCTOR/SEI
MOFFETT NAVAL AIR STATION
MEW:
(RAYTHEON, FAIRCHILD-
Mountain View and
INTEL-Mountain View)
AMD:
(TRW. AMD 0901. SIGNETICS)
and AMD *915
AMD-ARGUES (MONOLITHIC)
VAN WATERS and ROGERS
APPLIED MATERIALS
SYNERTEK
SOLVENT SERVICE
NATIONAL SEMICONDUCTOR
LORENTZ
IBM
FAIRCHILD
FIGURE 2: 28 FEDERAL SUPERFUND SITES
WITH GROUNDWATER CONTAMINATION IN THE SOUTH BAY AREA
-------
Where Does South Bay
Drinking Water Come From ?
Drinking water comes from groundwater and surface water.
As Figure 3 depicts, groundwater collects in underground
layers of water-saturated rock, gravel, or sand, called aquifers.
In the South Bay, aquifers are generally separated by relatively
impermeable layers of clay.
SAN FRANCISCO BAY
PRIVATE WELL
PUBLIC WELL-
Not to
Scale
FIGURE 3: REPRESENTATION OF SOUTH BAY
AQUIFER SYSTEM
Groundwater moves very slowly in comparison to surface
water, such as streams or rivers. The velocity of groundwater
varies depending on many factors, including the type of
material through which it moves and pumping activities in the
area. Water within the aquifers in the South Bay generally
flows toward San Francisco Bay.
Throughout much of the South Bay, groundwater lies in two
main aquifers. The shallow aquifer is separated from the deep
aquifer in most places by a clay layer, which begins about 100
feet below the ground surface. The clay layer varies in
thickness; in the northern area, closer to the Bay, it is approxi-
mately 100 feet thick. This clay layer acts as a barrier,
preventing water and contaminants that may be released near
the ground surface from easily reaching the deep aquifer. The
clay layer does, however, contain natural cracks or gaps
through which water and contaminants can move. Improperly
sealed wells that penetrate the clay layer and connect the two
aquifers may also provide a migration route for contami-
nants.
The general aquifer structure throughout most of the South B ay
area is similar to the description earlier; however, site-specific
geology varies widely. These differences are especially
important in the southern section of the South Bay, where the
separating clay layer "pinches out" or thins. In some areas, the
shallow and deeper aquifers are not separated by a clay layer
and the deeper aquifer is replenished or recharged by water
filtering down from the surface. If this "recharge" water
becomes contaminated, the deeper drinking water aquifers are
threatened since there are no clay layers to prevent contami-
nants from percolating into the deeper groundwater. Figure 6
on page 8 shows this recharge process.
Most water is provided to South Bay residents through public
supply systems, which draw groundwater from the deep aqui-
fer below the protective clay layer. A few residents continue
to be served by private wells. The majority of the private wells
draw water from the less protected shallow aquifer. Some
water is imported through aqueduct systems from reservoirs,
lakes, and rivers.
If \ on ha\ e questions about \ our drinking water, contact
\our \\ater supplier. To find out "ho provides \our
drinking \\ater, contact the Santa Clara \ allev Water
District. Their number is listed on paj;e 21.
Is Your Drinking Water Safe?
As mentioned earlier, a major concern in the South Bay is that
contaminated groundwater may result in future contamination
of drinking water. Most of the contamination has been
restricted to the shallow aquifers, from which little drinking
water is drawn. However, without action, contaminants could
reach the deeper aquifer. At this time, all water suppliers in the
South Bay are providing water that meets drinking water
standards. See the inset entitled "What Are Drinking Water
Standards?"
The discovery of contaminated groundwater led to extensive
monitoring of water supply wells for chemicals detected at in-
dustrial sites. According to data compiled by the California
Department of Health Services (DHS) in December 1988, ap-
proximately 15 percent of the large public water supply wells
have been affected by some level of VOC contamination.
Table 2 shows approximately how many wells are known to
have been affected and the status of these wells. A number of
wells were closed because contaminant levels exceeded or ap-
proached drinking water standards. Several other wells, with
contaminant levels below drinking water standards, were put
on standby as a precautionary measure. These wells, which
produce safe water, will only be used when additional water
supplies are needed. Wells with contamination far below
drinking standards have remained in active use.
-------
Xi^
6
TABLE 2: WELLS AFFECTED BY
GROUNDWATER CONTAMINATION
IN THE SOUTH BAY
Information from Department of Health Services, 1988
On Total
Closed Standby In Use Affected
Affected
Public Wells:
Affected
Private Wells:*
Total No. of
Affected Wells:
6
47
53
12
12
20
9
29
38
56
94
* There are over 5,000 private wells in the South Bay; not all of
which have been sampled.
How do government agencies ensure that the water you are
drinking is not contaminated with industrial chemicals? Public
water supply wells are monitored routinely. In addition, when
a contamination source is discovered, nearby drinking water
wells, including private wells, are monitored.
Water suppliers test large public water supply wells that serve
over 200 households for VOCs and other potential contami-
nants on a yearly basis. Some of the water suppliers in the
South Bay have chosen to monitor their wells more frequently.
If results indicate contamination, the wells are tested more fre-
quently. Wells are taken out of service when contaminant
levels pose a significant health threat or when contaminant
levels exceed the standards.
Small well systems, serving 5 to 199 households, are usually
located in rural areas. The Santa Clara County Health Depart-
ment (SCCHD) monitors these wells for organic chemicals
on a case-by-case basis.
No formal monitoring requirements currently exist for pri-
vate wells. These wells generally draw from shallow aquifers
and thus have a greater chance than public wells of becoming
contaminated. The SCCHD has initiated private well sam-
pling studies to assess potential contamination. Under a grant
from DHS and with funds from Santa Clara County, the
SCCHD recently completed a study of 1,225 private wells (out
of some 5,000). Approximately 3.3 percent of the wells
sampled showed the presence of VOCs, while nearly 28 per-
cent of the wells sampled failed to meet drinking water
standards due to inorganic chemical contamination (usually
nitrates), most likely from septic systems and agricultural fer-
tilizers. About 25 percent of the samples exceeded standards
for bacteria levels.
If \our \u'll \\as not included in this siiuh and vou
certified labs that tun perform Hie analysis from the
SCCHD. See pa«;e 21 of this report for their phone
number.
What are Drinking Water Standards?
EPA and DHS establish federal and state drinking water
standards. These standards are used to determine what
levels of contaminants are unacceptable in drinking
water supplies. Under the federal Safe Drinking Water
Act, EPA has established "Maximum Contaminant
Levels" (MCLs) for several of the contaminants found
in the South Bay. EPA establishes MCLs based on the
contaminant's potential health effects, as well as on
technological and economic feasibility of treatment. If
an MCL is exceeded for a particular contaminant, the
water supplier is required to notify its customers, submit
a plan to EPA for meeting the standard, and correct the
problem.
DHS sets "Action Levels" for numerous contaminants
based solely on health criteria; these standards are not
legally enforceable but are offered as guidelines. During
1989, DHS is adopting enforceable standards, called
state MCLs, for many of the contaminants for which
there are currently only Action Levels. State MCLs are
also based on health criteria as well as cost and techno-
logical feasibility of treatment. If a water supply exceeds
a state MCL, the water supplier must notify its custom-
ers and take action to reduce the contamination. If a
water supply exceeds an Action Level for a particular
substance, DHS recommends that the supplier notify its
customers and reduce the contamination.
-------
What is the Superfund National Priorities List?
The National Priorities List (NPL) is the nation's list of
identified areas posing the greatest potential threat to human
health and the environment. These areas or sites must be
cleaned up in accordance with the federal program's guid-
ing legislation: the Comprehensive Environmental Response,
Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA) and the Super-
fund Amendments and Reauthorization Act. CERCLA es-
tablished a Trust Fund, also known as "Superfund," which is
primarily financed by a tax on the chemical and petroleum
industries.
EPA can use Superfund monies for investigation and clean-
up at any site included on the NPL. Monies from the Trust
Fund may be used when the parties responsible for contami-
nation at NPL sites are unknown, or unwilling or unable to
finance site cleanup on their own. EPA has the authority to
then pursue those parties responsible for the contamination
and seek financial reimbursement for the costs of any inves-
tigation and cleanup activities conducted by EPA. This cost
recovery authority allows EPA to sue those parties for up to
three times the cost of the cleanup activities.
Who is Responsible For Cleaning Up?
Twenty-eight sites in the South Bay with groundwater con-
tamination are on or proposed for the federal Superfund
program's National Priorities List (NPL). Figure 2 shows the
location of these sites. While EPA directly oversees cleanup
at seven of the Superfund sites, responsibility for 20 of them
has been put in the hands of the Regional Board, the agency
with the longest involvement in cleanup of South Bay ground-
water. DHS is overseeing cleanup at the Rhone-Poulenc/
Zoecon Superfund site. Figure 4 shows agency involvement at
these sites.
In almost all of the federal Superfund cases with groundwater
contamination in the South Bay, the companies responsible
for the pollution are cleaning it up. They are doing so under
orders from the Regional Board, DHS, or EPA. Even though
many of the companies are taking action voluntarily, these
orders are important because they stipulate tasks and sched-
ules for conducting investigation and cleanup activities, and
they require compliance with federal and state regulations.
In contrast, the Lorentz Barrel & Drum site investigation and
cleanup is currently being conducted by EPA, and financed by
the Superfund Trust Fund. Initial cleanup activities at Lorentz
were performed by DHS. Efforts are underway to identify
parties who may have contributed to or caused the contamina-
tion at the site (called potentially responsible parties or PRPs)
and hold them accountable for the cleanup. When PRPs are
identified, EPA will negotiate with them to take over cleanup
efforts; EPA would then monitor the PRP cleanup.
EPA provides support and funds for the Regional Board's
activities at NPL sites through a contract known as the Multi-
Site Cooperative Agreement. One of the important conditions
San Francisco Bay
Regional Board
California
Department of
Health Services
U.S. Environmental i
Protection Agency
'One site is included where EPA is funding and conducting cleanup
activities without assistance from the responsible parties. Respon-
sible parties are conducting clean-up activities at all the other sites.
FIGURE 4: NUMBER OF FEDERAL SUPERFUND
SITES IN THE SOUTH BAY WITH
AGENCY INVOLVEMENT
of this agreement is that sites must be cleaned up according to
federal Superfund program requirements. In addition, the agree-
ment funds activities designed to enhance an area-wide, rather
than only site-specific, approach to groundwater cleanup.
Coordination of cleanup and enforcement activities between
the various regulatory agencies is enhanced by the South Bay
Groundwater Contamination Enforcement Agreement between
EPA, DHS, and the Regional Board. This agreement spells out
the responsibilities of the lead agencies, including maintaining
a data base to track and help coordinate progress at all the South
-------
Bay sites. The agreement also sets guidelines for deciding
which agency should play the lead role at a given site. See
Table 4 on page 11 for a list of which agency has the lead at
each site, the status of the site on the NPL, and the suspected
source of contamination.
Many local and regional organizations are also involved in
decisions that affect site cleanup. These include several Santa
6
Clara County departments, the Santa Clara Valley Water
District, and city fire departments or hazardous materials
offices, as well as industry, community groups, and the public.
Figure 5 depicts how these groups interact.
Who Pays?
Who Does the
Work?
Who Oversees
the Project?
Who Helps?
DHS: California Depart mer
EPA: U.S. Environmental F
RWQCB: San Francisco B
/RESPONSIBLE /
PARTIES /
1
/RESPONSIBLE /
PARTIES /
I_
1
/RWQCB// EPA // DHS /
/FEDERAL /
SUPERFUND /
, '
H
H
/STATE /
SUPERFUND /
1
/ DHS /
/ DHS /
Santa Clara County Health Department, Santa Clara Valley Water District, Fire Departments,
Hazardous Materials Units, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service, Agency for
Toxic Substances and Disease Registry, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration,
CA Department of Fish & Game, Consultants, the Public
t of Health Services
'rotection Agency - Region IX
3y Regional Water Quality Control Board (Regional Board)
FIGURE 5: RESPONSIBILITIES AT SUPERFUND SITES IN THE SOUTH BAY
-------
How Do We Balance Groundwater Cleanup
Cleaning up groundwater may involve removing millions of
gallons of contaminated water from the South Bay's ground-
water aquifers for treatment. Concern about the disposal of
this water without further use has been heightened by recent
drought conditions. Industry, government, and water suppli-
ers are actively considering ways to reuse the extracted ground-
water. Reducing pumping rates to limit the amount of water
extracted is also being considered, although this may result in
slower progress toward cleanup.
This water use issue is particularly relevant to IBM and
Fairchild, which are located in the aquifer "recharge" zone.
Figure 6 shows this recharge zone. The recharge zone is where
the clay layer that separates the South Bay's two primary
aquifers thins, allowing water to percolate from the surface
and replenish both the shallow and deep aquifers. Contami-
nation in the recharge zone is of particular concern because of
the potential effect it can have on the entire Santa Clara Valley
water basin. Once contaminants reach the deeper aquifer in the
recharge zones, the contaminated groundwater could flow
northward under the clay layer and contaminate the deeper
drinking water supply aquifer.
. . . and Water Supply Needs?
Furthermore, due to the geology in the recharge area, ground-
water moves much more quickly than it does in the northern
area, and contaminant plumes migrate more quickly. Captur-
ing and containing the plumes may require removing very large
volumes of water.
Most pumping in the area is for drinking water supply, agricul-
ture, and industry; pumping for cleanup activities represents
only a small percentage of the extraction. However, due to
drought conditions and as a result of these various pumping ac-
tivities, underground water levels near IBM and Fairchild have
dropped significantly. These decreased levels of water in the
aquifer may also lead to increased subsidence rates. When
water levels drop, the soil material that was supported by water
collapses, filling in the void spaces that the water occupied.
This collapsing or compaction of soils leads to the lowering of
the ground's surface. This phenomenon, subsidence, can
damage buildings and underground structures such as pipes
and tanks, and increases the potential for flood damage. In
addition, once the soils are compacted, there is less space for
,'/ ' /// / / /'/ //
/'/////.'// /'
'//,' RECHARGE ZONE /
/ ''/'/ ///////
PUBLIC
WATER
SUPPLY
WELL
SAN FRANCISCO
BAY
'/'///' ' RECHARGE
" J / , /' / /POND
'
^te
FIGURE 6: DIAGRAM OF THE RECHARGE ZONE IN THE SOUTH BAY
-------
^r
6
water storage and the aquifer is less effective for yielding water
in the future.
Various alternatives for productively using the extracted and
treated water and replenishing the depleted aquifer are being
considered. One option focuses on delivering the water to the
area's "recharge ponds," where surface water is used to replen-
ish the groundwater aquifers. Other options explored for reuse
include re-injection directly into the aquifer, and using the
treated water for irrigation or industrial use. The need to avoid
unnecessary waste of water is being balanced against concerns
about reusing the extracted water. EPA's Superfund program
encourages reuse of the water whenever water quality stan-
dards are met and public health is protected.
One short-term way to restore water levels in the aquifer is to
reduce the rate at which water is being pumped from the
aquifer. The disadvantage of this alternative is that the con-
taminant plumes may be less effectively controlled, resulting
in contamination migrating further. As migration continues,
more water may become contaminated and the total amount of
time required to accomplish cleanup may be longer. How-
ever, because the levels of the contaminants that will continue
to migrate under a reduced pumping scenario are below drink-
ing water standards at both IBM and Fairchild, the Regional
Board has determined that this measure is necessary to protect
the aquifer. The Regional Board determined this action will
TABLE 3: PUMPING RATES AT IBM
AND FAIRCHILD, SAN JOSE
IBM
Fairchild
Prior to 4/88
8.2 mgd*
4.0 mgd
After 9/88
2.2 mgd
1.5 mgd
* An mgd is equal to one million gallons per day. An average family of
four uses approximately 600 gallons of water per day or 0.0006 mgd.
Ten thousand families of four use about 6,000,000 gallons per day or
6 mgd.
not pose a significant threat to public health and requested that
the companies reduce their pumping rates. Table 3 shows the
reduction in the pumping rates.
In the longer term, debate continues about how best to manage
water quantity versus water quality throughout the South Bay.
While the rates of groundwater extraction are significantly
lower at the other groundwater contamination sites in the
South Bay than at IBM and Fairchild, the issue of water supply
management is of growing concern. Companies are being
asked to consider water conservation and reuse as a part of
their long-term plans for cleanup.
. . . and Clean Air Concerns?
Most of the contaminants found at South Bay Superfund sites
are VOCs, which can evaporate readily into the air. Proven
technologies exist for effectively removing these VOCs from
water or soil. (VOCs can sometimes be directly eliminated by
other technologies. In some cases, these technologies may not
be practical due to cost, reliability, and effectiveness.) How-
ever, as these techniques are used and the VOCs are separated
from the water or soil, the question remains of what to do with
the VOCs.
Releasing VOCs directly to the air may adversely affect air
quality. The Bay Area Air Quality Management District is re-
sponsible for monitoring air emissions to ensure that public
health is protected. To prevent unacceptable air emissions,
chemical vapors can be treated and removed from air. VOCs
are trapped by a carbon treatment system. The used carbon
will either be disposed of or regenerated through incineration.
Thus, contamination does not simply go away; industry and
government must balance groundwater cleanup goals with
clean air considerations when designing cleanup systems.
-------
What Progress Has Been Made in Investigation and Cleanup?
Interim Actions
In general, the first step taken at a typical South Bay site is the
identification and elimination of any immediate health threats.
This step is most frequently accomplished through monitoring
nearby drinking water wells that could have been affected by
contaminated groundwater and evaluating the risk of direct
contact with contaminated water, soils, or air. If any immedi-
ate health threats are discovered, short-term cleanup actions
are taken as soon as possible. Interim actions can also be taken
to prevent further spread of contamination while long-term so-
lutions are developed.
As Table 5 on page 12 indicates, a number of interim actions
are currently in place and operating. These interim actions will
continue as necessary until the final remedy is in place. Interim
actions have been conducted at almost all of the South Bay
sites. Additional current information about site-specific cleanup
efforts is available from the Site Management System data
base, which is maintained by the Regional Board.
Long-term Investigations
While interim actions are continuing, longer-term studies and
analyses are being conducted to develop appropriate final
cleanup schemes. Long-term investigations have begun at all
of the federal Superfund sites in the South Bay. Investigation
and cleanup activities take place within a regulatory frame-
work designed to promote consistent decisionmaking through-
out the country.
The first step in the federal Superfund process, after the site is
proposed for the NPL, is to conduct a comprehensive site in-
vestigation known as a Remedial Investigation (RI) to deter-
mine the type and extent of contamination. The next phase, the
Feasibility Study (FS), requires evaluating various alterna-
tives for cleaning up the contamination at the site. For more
information about the evaluation criteria, see the inset" How
Do We Evaluate Cleanup Alternatives?" on page 17. After in-
viting public comment, a cleanup alternative is selected and
cleanup activities begin. The federal Superfund process is out-
lined in Figure 7 on page 13.
Cleanup Levels
Deciding on a particular cleanup alternative requires determin-
ing appropriate cleanup levels. Cleanup levels are the concen-
tration or amount of a contaminant that can safely remain after
cleanup is completed. Cleanup levels are determined on a site-
specific basis. Standards, such as federal MCLs established
by EPA under the Safe Drinking Water Act and state MCLs
and Action Levels established by DHS, are often used in estab-
lishing cleanup levels for contaminated groundwater. When
standards do not exist (as is the case for many contaminants),
a risk assessment is used to determine the level of cleanup
necessary to protect public health. For more information, see
the inset "What are Risk Assessments?" on page 14.
Final Cleanup Actions
After public comment has been considered, a final cleanup
option is chosen. For information about public involvement,
see the section "How Can You Become Involved?" on page 18.
The first phase of cleanup is known as the Remedial Design .
During this phase treatment systems are designed and tested.
The next step of cleanup is the Remedial Action. At this point
in the process, final cleanup activities start or on-going interim
cleanup activities are modified for inclusion in the final cleanup.
What is the RCRA Listing Policy?
In November 1984, the Resource Conservation and Re-
covery Act (RCRA), which regulates operating hazard-
ous waste facilities, was amended to include cleanup au-
thorities similar to those under CERCLA. The adoption
of the amendments meant that eight sites in the South Bay
could be cleaned up under RCRA authority. Table 4
indicates which sites may be affected by this policy. Use
of RCRA authorities does not involve the expenditure of
Trust Fund monies, thus leaving the funds available to
clean up other sites. If a site can be cleaned up under
RCRA authority, it is EPA's policy to reconsider place-
ment of the site on the NPL.
Despite the potential change in NPL status at several sites,
very little change in the cleanup processes underway is
expected. EPA recognizes the expectations created when
these sites were initially proposed for the NPL, and is
taking steps to ensure continuity and the continued qual-
ity of the cleanups.
More information about the RCRA listing polk)
iin 1 :i'A fact sheet. For a cop>. cull the KPA contact
listed on pufje 21 of this progress report.
10'
-------
TABLE 4: FEDERAL SUPERFUND SITES WITH GROUNDWATER CONTAMINATION IN THE SOUTH BAY
SITE
STATUS* LOCATION LEAD AGENCY
CONTAMINATION
Advanced Micro Devices, Arques
(Formerly Monolithic Memories)
Advanced Micro Devices (#901)
Advanced Micro Devices (#915)
Applied Materials
CIS Printex
Fairchild (MEW)
Fairchild
Hewlett Packard (640)
Hewlett Packard (1501)
IBM
Intel (MEW)
Intel Santa Clara 3
Intel Magnetic/Micro Storage
Intersil/Siemens
Jasco
Lorentz Barrel & Drum
Moffet Naval Air Station
National Semiconductor
Raytheon (MEW)
Rhone-Poulenc/Zoecon
Signetics
Solvent Service
Spectra Physics
Synertek
Teledyne Semiconductor/SEI
TRW Microwave
Van Waters and Rogers
F
F
P
F
P
D
R
P
D
D
F
F
F
P
P
R
F
F
F
D
D
P
P
P
F
P
D
Sunnyvale
Sunnyvale
Sunnyvale
Santa Clara
Mountain View
Mountain View
San Jose
Palo Alto
Palo Alto
San Jose
Mountain View
Santa Clara
Santa Clara
Cupertino
Mountain View
San Jose
Sunnyvale
Santa Clara
Mountain View
E. Palo Alto
Sunnyvale
San Jose
Mountain View
Santa Clara
Mountain View
Sunnyvale
San Jose
RWQCB
RWQCB
RWQCB
RWQCB
RWQCB
EPA
RWQCB
RWQCB
RWQCB
RWQCB
EPA
RWQCB
RWQCB
RWQCB
EPA
EPA
EPA/RWQCB"
RWQCB
EPA
DHS
RWQCB
RWQCB
RWQCB
RWQCB
RWQCB
RWQCB
RWQCB
VOCs from leaking pipelines
VOCs beneath the site from leaking
neutralization sump
VOCs from leaking acid neutralization and
underground storage tank
VOCs from leaking tanks and piping
VOCs from leaking sump
TCE from leaking tanks and pipelines
VOCs from solvent tank failure
VOCs from leaking underground storage
tank
VOCs from leaking tanks and pipelines
VOCs from leaking pipelines, surface spills,
and other sources
TCE from leaking tanks and pipelines
VOCs from unidentified sources
VOCs from unidentified sources
VOCs from leaking underground storage
tanks and spills
Methylene chloride, paint thinner, and other
VOCs from spills
PCBs; pesticides, heavy metals, and VOCs
VOCs from sumps, tanks, piping, spills
and landfill
VOCs from sumps, tanks, leaking pipes,
and spills
TCE from leaking tanks and pipelines
Arsenic from pesticide manufacturing
VOCs from leaking pipe
VOCs from leaking tanks and/or drums
VOCs from leaking sumps
VOCs from leaking undergrounf tanks
VOCs from leaking sump, piping and tanks
VOCs from leaking underground tank
VOCs and other solvents from leaking
Westinghouse
Sunnyvale
EPA
underground tanks and spills
PCBs from storage tank, BTX from
underground fuel tank leak
*P = Proposed for NPL with Update #7 (June 1988)
F = Final on NPL
Ft = Proposed to go final on NPL based on RCRA Listing Policy (see inset on page 10)
D = Proposed to be removed from the NPL based on RCRA Listing Policy (see inset on page 10)
** Site being transferred to EPA
(1/89)
-------
TABLE 5: INTERIM CLEANUPS CONDUCTED BY INDUSTRY
SOIL REMOVED TANKS 4. SLURRY EXTRACTION MONITORING TREATMENT
WELLSt ASa CAb other
SITE (cubic yards*) REMOVED WALLS
Advanced Micro Devices, Arques
(formerly Monolithic Memories)
Advcanced Mlicro Devices (#901)
Advanced Micro Devices (#915)
Applied Materials
CIS Printex
Fairchild - Mountain View (MEW)
Fairchild - San Jose
Hewlett Packard (640)
Hewlett Packard (1501)
IBM
Intel - Mountain View (MEW)
Intel Santa Clara 3
Intel Magnetics/Micro Storage
Intersil/Siemens
Jasco
Lorentz Barrel & Drum
Moffett Naval Air Station
National Semiconductor
Raytheon (MEW)
Rhone-Poulenc/Zoecon
Signetics
Solvent Service
Spectra Physics
Synertek
Teledyne Semiconductor/SEI
TRW Microwave
Van Waters and Rogers
200
215
5,500
60
300
-
3,400
800
-
23,000
4,700
-
34
-
575
3,000
Planned
500
-
-
5,000
100
-
40
-
200
_
2 tanks and 1 sump
2 acid neutralization
1 acid neutralization
1 waste stripper
1 waste solvent
2 acid neutralization
-
60 tanks 3
1 tank 1
1 tank
6 tanks
65 tanks and piping
5 tanks
1 concrete vault
-
1 tank replaced
5 tanks
5 sumps
1 diesel tank
26,500 drums
6 tanks and 1 sump
8 tanks and 6 sumps
tank piping 1
-
1 tank and piping
1 tank
5 sumps
4 tanks
1 tank
1 tank
_
WELLS t
11
6
8
2
(+1 pit)
7
26
4
3
3
13(before4/88)
4(after 4/88)
4
2
2
11
1
-
-
39
20
-
16
5
3 trenches
Planned
5
2
8
6
Westinghouse
800
13 tanks
41
24
32
35
-115
47
49
>300
>40
16
14
-75
12
6
82
92
>150
-30
117
-100
-50
27
-50
17
-40
23
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
X
Xc
X1
X<
Xc
h air stripping tower
carton adsorption unit
c soil vapor extraction
d recovery system, on-site
Lorentz Barrel S Drum cleanup activities not
currently being conducted by industry.
One cubic yard would fill a box 3 feet high,
3 feet long and 3 feet wide
"Tanks Removed" includes tanks, piping, and
drums as identified in the column below.
Groundwater wells
(1/89)
-------
6
Listing
Of
Site on the
National
Priorities
List
An onsite investigation is
conducted to assess
possible hazards at
identified sites.
This in-
formation is used to
determine if the hazards
at the site warrant
federal response and
listing on the National
Priorities List (NPL).
Once the site
is proposed
for the NPL,
investigation
and cleanup
activities must
Remedial
Investigation/
Feasibility Study*
The Remedial Investigation
(Rl) assesses the nature and
extent of contamination at a
site. The Feasibility Study (FS)
identifies and evaluates the
available treatment technolo-
gies and cleanup methods for
containing, treating, or
eliminating the contamination.
The companies identified
Public
Comment
Period
Following develop-
ment of a proposed
cleanup plan, the
lead agency holds a
public comment
period of at least 30
days. During the
comment period, the
RI/FS report is
available for public
Record of
Decision**
After considering
and responding to
public comments,
the lead agency
selects a final
cleanup plan.
EPA then
prepares a
Record of
Decision |^
\
\
Interim cleanup actions occur when necessary. >
/
/
meet the requirements of
the Comprehensive En-
vironmental Response,
Compensation and
Liability Act (also known
as the federal Superfund
law). Concurrent with
listing activities
the lead
regulatory agency is
determined. The lead
agency identifies
companies who might
have contributed to the
contamination at the site.
earlier and the lead agency
negotiate an agreement
defining who will pay for and
conduct these studies. The
companies or the lead agency
perform these investigations
and, using the information
collected (summarized in the
RI/FS report), propose a
cleanup strategy.
review, and formal
comment is invited
from all interested
parties. The lead
agency distributes a
fact sheet summariz-
ing the cleanup alter-
natives and the
proposed cleanup
plan. The lead
agency holds a
community meeting
to discuss the
proposed cleanup
action and to receive
comments.
^f
(ROD) document-
ing the cleanup
decision. When
EPA is not the
lead agency, the
Regional Board or
DHS prepares a
cleanup decision
document, which
EPA incorporates
into a ROD.
Remedial
Design/
Remedial
Action
After a cleanup
method is chosen,
the lead agency
and the companies
negotiate an
agreement defining
who will pay for
and conduct final
cleanup activities.
The companies or
the lead agency
develop the
specific design for
the cleanup
actions, construct
any necessary
treatment or
containment
systems, and
operate the
systems until
cleanup goals are
achieved.
K
Public Involvement activities are conducted throughout this process. \
1 8 months to 4 years
At least 30 days
4 to 8 months
T^
2 to 300 years
At state-lead sites, DHS and the Regional Board refer to
the RI/FS report as a Draft Remedial Action Plan (Draft
RAP).
At state-lead sites, DHS and the Regional Board refer to
the cleanup decision document as a Final Remedial Action
Plan (Final RAP), which is adopted as a Remedial Action
Order.
FIGURE 7: FEDERAL SUPERFUND PROCESS
-------
What are Risk Assessments?
The purpose of a risk assessment is to estimate the
potential health and environmental effects of exposure to
the toxic chemicals at a given site. During the risk
assessment, existing levels of contamination at a site are
evaluated to quantify what level of risk may be posed to
human health and the environment. Risk assessments
also consider factors such as potential migration path-
ways, types of exposure, the amount of exposure that
could occur, and the risk presented by the individual con-
taminants.
Risk is expressed as a probability; it describes the chance
of one person developing cancer due to exposure to con-
tamination at a site. For example, a risk number of 10"6
(or 1 in 1,000,000) translates into the probability that for
a population of one million people who are exposed to the
contamination, one additional case of cancer may be ob-
served above what might be expected in the general
population. This person would not necessarily die of the
cancer. (The cancer rate in the general population is
approximately 1 in 4.) This risk number is often referred
to as "one in a million." Table 6 shows a series of risk
numbers and the corresponding probabilities.
EPA uses very conservative assumptions in preparing
risk assessments to determine a worst case scenario. For
example, EPA assumes that individuals consume two
liters (about eight glasses) of drinking water every day
from wells drawing water directly from a contaminant
plume over a 70-year lifetime. Ninety-five percent of the
time, the calculated risk exceeds the actual risk. The
actual risk can in some cases be zero.
Based on the risk assessment, the agency must decide if the
risk posed by a contaminant at a site is "acceptable" or
determine what actions must be taken to reduce this risk to
make it "acceptable." Under the Superfund policy, any
risk number that falls within the range of Ifr4 to 107 is
generally considered an "acceptable" risk. If the risk
number is higher (for instance 10~3), then actions must be
taken to reduce exposures to contaminant levels. This
action would in turn lower the risk to within the above-
mentioned range of acceptable risks. The W6 value is con-
sidered the "departure limit"; if a different value is se-
lected, EPA must explain the use of a different level.
Risk assessments are thus used to determine what level of
a particular contaminant poses an acceptable risk and is
therefore established as a cleanup goal.
TABLES: RISK NUMBERS AND
ASSOCIATED PROBABILITIES
Risk Number
10-3
10-"
io-5
io-6
Probability
1 in 1,000
1 in10,000
1 in 100,000
1 in 1,000,000
* For comparison, the risk ol being hit by lightning is estimated at one in 30,000 or
approximately 3 x 10 ". The risk of being killed in an earthquake in California is
approximately one in 8,000 or 1.2 x 10 -'.
What Methods are Used to Protect Public Health and the Environment?
The following section briefly describes some of the technolo-
gies that have been or may soon be used at South Bay sites.
Table 5 on page 12 lists the technologies currently being used
at each site.
Provide Alternative
Water Supply
When drinking water supplies have been
affected by contamination, one of the first
actions considered is providing another
source of water, such as bottled water or connection to city
water supplies. While this is not a cleanup activity perse, pro-
viding another source of water is an effective way to reduce the
potential for human exposure to the chemicals.
Tank
Removal
Leaking underground storage tanks, pip-
ing, or drums are common sources of con-
tamination at South Bay Superfund sites. Removal of these
sources can prevent further site contamination.
-------
~*ur
6
Soil
Removal
Shortly after a contamination source is dis-
covered, the highly contaminated soil im-
mediately surrounding it will often be excavated and dis-
posed of at a hazardous waste landfill. Such soil removal
reduces the amount of contamination that may be washed
from the soil and carried into ground water by rainfall. In ad-
dition, removing highly contaminated soil minimizes the
possibility of people coming into contact with the contami-
nants by breathing dust or handling the soil. Once longer term
studies to better define the nature and extent of contamination
are completed, additional soil cleanup is often undertaken.
Groundwater
Extraction
and Treatment
__ One of the most common interim actions at
South Bay sites has been groundwater ex-
traction designed to contain the migration of groundwater
plumes and reduce the level of contaminants present. About
200 wells are pumping contaminated water at 24 of the 28
Superfund sites. Groundwater extraction is effectively limit-
ing the spread of contamination at these sites and, in some
cases, is reducing the size of the contaminant plumes.
Figure 8 shows an example of how a contaminant plume has
been reduced as a result of groundwater extraction.
Soil
Vapor
Extraction
Soil vapor extraction (also called soil gas
removal) is a relatively new technique now
being considered and used as an alternative to soil removal
and disposal at a number of sites. This technique is used to
reduce contaminant levels in the soils located above the
shallow groundwater table. Wells are drilled into the con-
taminated soil, and then contaminants in the gas or vapor
stage are drawn with a vacuum from the soil and, in some
cases, are passed through carbon filters that remove the con-
taminants from the vapor. Soil vapor extraction does not
require excavation, transportation, and relocation of soil.
This technique has been found to be effective in treating many
of the VOCs found at South Bay sites.
Slurry
Walls
Slurry walls are occasionally used as bar-
riers to contain the flow of contaminated
groundwater. They are constructed by digging a trench
around a contaminated area and filling the trench with an im-
permeable material that prevents water from passing through
it. The groundwater trapped within the area surrounded by
the slurry wall can be extracted and treated. Slurry walls have
been constructed at three Superfund sites: Fairchild and Ray-
theon in Mountain View, and Fairchild in San Jose.
10/82
6/87
Santa Teresa Boulevard
San 190.
Santa Tere« s' Boulevard
10,000 ppb TCA
1,000 ppb TCA
100 ppb TCA
10 ppb TCA
SLURRY WALL
Not to Scale
FIGURE 8: REDUCTION OF TCA PLUMES AT
FAIRCHILD PLANT, SAN JOSE
-------
However, one of the disadvantages of extensive groundwater
pumping is the depletion of limited groundwater supplies.
This problem has been further aggravated by the recent
drought. See the discussion in "How Do We Balance Ground-
water Cleanup and Water Supply Needs?" on page 8 for more
information about this issue.
At many of the sites, the extracted groundwater is treated
before being discharged into a sewer or stream or before being
reused. The discharge of extracted water into surface waters
is regulated by the Regional Board under the federal Clean
Water Act's National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
program. Different treatment systems, including air stripping
and carbon adsorption, can be used to lower contaminant
levels. The selection of a treatment system depends on the type
and amounts of contamination found at the site.
Air stripping is often an effective treatment method for remov-
ing the contaminants from the water because many of the
contaminants at the South Bay sites are chemicals that evapo-
rate easily. Extraction systems with air strippers are in use at
14 of the South Bay Superfund sites. The extracted contami-
nated water is sprayed down through a tower containing
packing materials, and air is blown upward. The VOCs
evaporate, leaving significantly reduced contaminant levels in
the water. Figure 9 shows a typical air stripping tower. Air
stripping usually removes at least 95 percent of VOC contami-
nants.
Transferring the compounds to the air may create an additional
environmental problem. The VOCs released into the air are
regulated by the local Air Quality Management District to
ensure that their levels do not exceed health standards. Iflevels
of contaminants being released to the air exceed federal, state,
or local standards, an additional treatment system to control air
emissions is required. For more information on this topic, see
the discussion in "How Do We Balance Groundwater Cleanup
and Clean Air Concerns?" on page 9.
Carbon adsorption is the other predominant technology used
to treat extracted groundwater contaminated by VOCs, and is
in use at seven of the South Bay Superfund sites. The contami-
nated water is pumped through tanks containing activated
carbon particles that have been specially treated to attract
contaminants. The contaminants "cling" to the carbon and are
thus removed from the water. Carbon adsorption is capable of
removing 95 percent or more of the VOCs. The contaminated
carbon can then either be regenerated to be used again, or
disposed of in a hazardous waste landfill.
EPA is testing an ozone/ultraviolet treatment system for use at
the Lorentz Barrel & Drum site. In this method, ozone is
bubbled into extracted groundwater, which is exposed to high
intensity ultraviolet light at the same time. As a result, the
toxic molecules are broken down into smaller, less-toxic
molecules.
Many environmental factors affect the cleanup of groundwa-
ter. Contaminants that have traveled long distances from the
source (i.e., have larger plumes) may take longer to clean up.
Chemicals can adsorb or stick to soil and may require "flush-
ing" to be removed. Contaminated soils may act as a continu-
ing source even after the leaking tank, drum, or other original
source has been removed. Other pumping in the area may alter
the direction of the plume and the amount of water that can be
pumped. These and other factors may interact to prolong
groundwater cleanup.
AERATION
TOWER
Not to Scale
GRANULAR
ACTIVATED
CARBON AIR
FILTER
(AS NEEDED)
AIR IN
WATER FLOW
AIR FLOW
I I
u
SCREENED
PORTION
Of WELL
FIGURE 9: DIAGRAM OF A TYPICAL
AIR STRIPPING TOWER
16'
-------
How Do We Evaluate Cleanup Alternatives?
Each cleanup alternative considered at a federal Superfund site is assessed using the nine criteria described below. This
approach is designed to provide decisionmakers with sufficient information to compare the alternatives, select an appro-
priate remedy for a site, and satisfy legal requirements. The criteria are summarized below:
Short-term Effectiveness
Short-term effectiveness considers
the period of time needed to complete
the remedy and achieve the cleanup
goals. It also refers to the need to limit
any adverse effects on human health
and the environment that may be
posed during the construction and
operation of the remedy.
Long-term Effectiveness
Long-term effectiveness refers to the
ability of a remedy to maintain reli-
able protection of human health and
the environment over time, once
cleanup goals have been met.
Reduction of Toxicity, Mobility,
and Volume through Treatment
This criteria considers the ability of a
remedy to reduce the toxicity, mobil-
ity, and volume of the hazardous ma-
terials present at the site.
Implementability
Implementability involves the techni-
cal and administrative feasibility of a
remedy, including the availability of
materials and services needed to carry
out a particular option.
Cost
The capital costs and the operation and
maintenance costs of each alternative
are estimated.
* Overall Protection of Human
Health and the Environment
The alternative's ability to provide ade-
quate protection and to eliminate, re-
duce, or control risks through treat-
ment, engineering controls, or institu-
tional controls is assessed.
Compliance with Applicable or
Relevant and Appropriate Re-
quirements (ARARs)
ARARs refer to the alternative's ability
to comply with all federal and state
environmental laws and/ or justify a
waiver from those requirements.
* State Acceptance
This criteria considers the extent of
state approval for the remedy.
* Community Acceptance
Community approval of the remedy
and whether or not the community has
a preference for any of the alternative
remedies is weighed . Although pub-
lic comment is an important part of the
final decision, EPA is compelled by
law to balance community concerns
with all of the previously mentioned
criteria.
Glossary of Acronyms
ARARs - Applicable or Relevant and
Appropriate Requirements
CERCLA - Comprehensive Environ-
mental Response, Compensation, and
Liability Act
DHS - State of California Department of
Health Services
EPA - United States Environmental Pro-
tection Agency
MCL - Maximum Contaminant Level
MEW - The sites within an area bor-
dered by Middlefield, Ellis, and Whis-
man streets
MGD - Million Gallons Per Day
NPL - National Priorities List
PCB - Polychlorinated Biphenyls
RCRA - Resource Conservation and
Recovery Act
RI/FS - Remedial Investigation/Fea-
sibility Study
ROD - Record of Decision
RWQCB - San Francisco Bay Regional
Water Quality Control Board (Regional
Board)
SCCHD - Santa Clara County Health
Department
TCA - Trichloroethane
TCE - Trichloroethylene
VOC - Volatile Organic Compound
'17'
-------
What are the Other South Bay Groundwater Programs?
In addition to the cleanup efforts at the sites on the federal
Supeifund list, the Regional Board, DHS, and industry are
continuing work at other South Bay contamination sites. A
number of other state and local organizations are working to
mitigate and prevent future groundwater contamination by
industrial chemicals and fuel leaks. The South Bay Groundwa-
ter Contamination Task Force, with representatives from the
community, industry, federal, state, and local agencies, meets
quarterly to coordinate these and other government efforts.
Active state and local programs include:
Fuel Leak Program
As in most areas, storing gasoline in
underground tanks is common in the
Santa Clara Valley. Under the Fuel
Leak Program, the Santa Clara Valley
Water District, as part of a contract
from the Regional Board, is evaluating
the severity of reported fuel leaks in
the vicinity of drinking water wells to
provide guidance to the responsible
parties on their cleanup. Currently,
approximately 900 fuel leaks are being
verified and investigated, while over
90 are active cleanup cases.
programs, contact the Santa
sted on paau 21.
Well Sealing
Abandoned wells can potentially allow
contaminants to migrate from the shal-
low aquifer to the deep aquifer used for
drinking water. The Santa Clara Valley
Water District, in conjunction with EPA,
has been focusing on areas near but not
within groundwater contamination
plumes. (At federal Superfund sites, the
responsible company(ies) is required to
seal any abandoned wells found within
the plume area.) By filling the wells with
cement grout, 300 wells have been sealed
since 1984, with dozens more targeted
for sealing in 1989. In addition, over one
thousand wells have been sealed by the
private sector since 1984.
Hazardous Materials
Storage Ordinances
(HMSOs)
In 1982, suddenly confronted with the
emerging groundwater contamination
problem, representatives of govern-
ment, industry and the community co-
operatively drafted the first model or-
dinance in the country specifically
designed to detect and prevent con-
tamination from underground storage
tanks. By 1983, most local govern-
ments in Santa Clara County had
adopted the ordinance. State and fed-
eral laws based on this original ordi-
nance soon followed.
The HMSOs require secondary con-
tainment, such as a vault around a tank,
on all new underground storage facili-
ties. Existing facilities must be tested
for leaks and have monitoring systems
installed. All facilities must submit
plans for managing their hazardous
materials, report suspected leaks or
spills, and clean up contaminants if a
leak or spill occurs. The ordinance
should be in full effect by 1990.
How Can You Become Involved?
The Superfund law establishes a strong program of public par-
ticipation in the decision-making process at Superfund sites.
EPA, DHS, and the Regional Board all conduct public in-
volvement activities at their respective federal Superfund sites
in the South Bay. The goal of these programs is to encourage
informed input from communities and/or individuals affected
by these sites.
The lead regulatory agency for a particular site develops and
conducts public outreach and public involvement activities
throughout the investigation and cleanup process. Once the
public agency responsible for overseeing cleanup has made a
preliminary selection of an appropriate cleanup alternative(s)
and cleanup levels, the public has the opportunity to comment
on the proposed selection. For sites under federal direction,
18'
-------
the public can review and comment on the RI/FS and on a
Proposed Plan that outlines EPA's preferred cleanup alterna-
tive. The final selection of a cleanup alternative is documented
in the Record of Decision. At state-lead sites, a draft Remedial
Action Plan will be available for public comment.
For all sites, the plans are made available to the public by
placing the documents in a local library, mailing fact sheets
that summarize key components of the plans, and placing ad-
vertisements in local newspapers announcing comment peri-
ods and community meetings.
Comments on the proposed cleanup plans can be submitted
orally at public meetings held during the comment period or
submitted in writing. After the public comment period has
closed, the lead agency will summarize and respond to the
comments in a responsiveness summary, and make changes in
the proposed actions as appropriate. Additional public meet-
ings may be held throughout the process so the lead agency can
receive input from the community and keep the public in-
formed of recent progress and proposed activities.
Heln\\ you Mill find a mailing list si«n-iip form. If you
\\ould like to be added to the mailing list fora particular
site, or to be on the general mailing list, check the appro-
priate boxes and return the form to KPA.
r
Mailing List Sign-up Form
If you would like to be added to EPA's general South Bay mailing list or any of the site-specific mailing lists, please fill out
the form below. Please return the form to Helen Burke, EPA Community Relations Coordinator, Office of Community
Relations, U.S. EPA, 215 Fremont Street (T-1-3), San Francisco, California 94105. (If you are already on these mailing
lists, you don't need to send in your name again.)
NAME
ORGANIZATION/COMPANY
STREET ADDRESS
CITY, STATE, ZIP CODE
PHONE NUMBER (OPTIONAL)
I would like to be included on the following mailing lists:
j South Bay - General j Fairchild - San Jose
I 1 ' '
Advanced Micro Devices #901
J Hewlett Packard (640)
Advanced Micro Devices #91 5 ] Hewlett Packard (1 501 )
Advanced Micro Devices - Arques
(formerly Monolithic Memories)
Applied Materials
CTSPrintex
Fairchild - Mountain View (MEW)
j Intel - Mountain View (MEW)
] Intel Santa Clara 3
QJ Intel Magnetics/Micro Storage
Intersil/Siemens
L
Solvent Service
South Bay Asbestos
Area- Alviso
Jasco
Lorentz Barrel & Drum
Motfett Naval Air Station Spectra Physics
National Semiconductor Synertek
Raytheon (MEW) 1 Teledyne Semiconductor/SEI
Rhone-Poulenc/Zoecon TRW Microwave
Signetics j Van Waters and Rogers
Westinghouse
J
19'
-------
Conclusion
Significant progress has been made in reducing contamination
in the South Bay. While final cleanup has not been completed
at any of the South Bay Superfund sites, contaminated ground-
water in the South Bay has been contained and the immediate
health threats have been abated. The water provided to
customers is safe to drink and is closely monitored to ensure
that contamination sources do not contaminate the supply in
the future. Cooperative cleanup efforts involving industry and
local, state, and federal government agencies will continue
until cleanup has been achieved.
At sites with contaminated groundwater, pumping and treating
contaminated groundwater to reduce the concentration of the
contaminants to acceptable levels may take decades. Cleanup
will not necessarily return the groundwater to a pure state, but
will be sufficient to protect human health and the environment.
On-going monitoring will verify the effectiveness of selected
remedies. At most of the sites, interim cleanup activities have
taken place. Final cleanup plans have been approved at IBM,
MEW, and Fairchild; and final cleanup activities are beginning
at these sites.
EPA, the Regional Board, DHS, and industry will continue to
involve the public in solving the hazardous waste problems in
the South Bay. We must all take responsibility for tackling
these environmental problems. This challenge requires appre-
ciating and balancing our need for a clean environment and our
demand for industrial products. With increased information
and an understanding of the risks of an industrial society, the
public can assist government agencies and industry in setting
environmental priorities and developing cleanup strategies for
the South Bay.
Printed on Recycled Paper
0
'20'
-------
For More Information ...
For more information on public involvement programs for South Bay Superfund sites, contact one of the Commu-
nity Relations Coordinators listed below:
Helen Burke Jim Thompson Shirley Buford
U.S. Environmental Protection Regional Water Quality California Department of
Agency Control Board Health Services
215 Fremont Street (T-1-3) 1111 Jackson Street, Room 6000 5850 Shellmound Avenue, Suite 100
San Francisco, CA 94105 Oakland, CA 94607 Emeryville, CA 94608
(415)974-7538 (415)464-3815 (415)540-3401
If you would like to find out who supplies your drinking water, contact Teddy Morse at the Santa Clara Valley Water
District at (408) 265-2600.
For information on the Santa Clara County private well sampling program or to obtain a list of state-certified laboratories
who will sample your private well, contact Glenn Hildebrand at the Santa Clara County Health Department at
(408) 299-6930.
For information on the epidemiological study conducted in the Los Paseos area, contact Shanna Swan at
(415) 540-2828 at the California Department of Health Services.
To obtain a copy of the EPA fact sheet on the RCRA listing policy, contact Janice Hicks, EPA Office of Community
Relations, at (415) 974-7673.
Call 1-800-231-3075 for additional information about the federal Superfund program.
------- |